A topological characterization of the Moufang
property for compact polygons

arXiv:1411.6911v3 [math.GR] 15 Jul 2016

Nicolas Radu∗
UCLouvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

July 15, 2016

Abstract
We prove a purely topological characterization of the Moufang property for disconnected compact polygons in terms of convergence groups. As a consequence, we recover
the fact that a locally finite thick affine building of rank 3 is a Bruhat–Tits building if
and only if its automorphism group is strongly transitive. We also study automorphism
groups of general compact polygons without any homogeneity assumption. A compactness
criterion for sets of automorphisms is established, generalizing the theorem by Burns and
Spatzier that the full automorphism group, endowed with the compact-open topology, is
a locally compact group.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Preliminaries
2.1 Compact spherical buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Strong transitivity and the Moufang property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
5
7

3 A compactness criterion for subsets of Auttop(∆)
7
3.1 Relative compactness in Auttop(∆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Sequences collapsed by a sequence of automorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Proof of the compactness criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Topological characterization of the Moufang property
4.1 Convergence groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Group of projectivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Conventions for the rest of the section . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Automorphisms fixing an apartment . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Proof of the characterization of the Moufang property .

∗

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 20E42 51E24 (Primary), 20F65 22D05 (Secondary).
F.R.S.-FNRS Research Fellow.

1

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

18
18
19
22
23
26

1

Introduction

Compact buildings form a natural generalization of compact projective planes. They were
introduced by Burns and Spatzier in [BS87a], and used in their proof of the Rank Rigidity Theorem for Riemannian manifolds of non-positive sectional curvature, see [BS87b]. A
prominent example of a compact building is provided by the spherical building associated
with a semisimple algebraic group over a non-discrete locally compact field. Since the origin,
the problem of characterizing those buildings associated with semisimple algebraic groups
among all compact buildings has attracted much attention; in some sense, this is the topic
of the encyclopaedic book [SBG+ 95], mainly devoted to the study of connected compact projective planes. The relevance of that problem is also well illustrated by the work of Burns
and Spatzier: a key result from [BS87a] that is used in the proof of Rank Rigidity in [BS87b]
asserts that a thick irreducible connected compact spherical building of rank ≥ 2 is the spherical building associated with a simple Lie group if and only if its automorphism group is
strongly transitive (see Subsection 2.2 for the definition of strong transitivity). This result
has been improved by Grundhöfer, Knarr and Kramer who showed in [GKK95] and [GKK00]
that the same classification is true for connected buildings admitting a chamber transitive
automorphism group. The starting point of the present article is the question whether such
a statement could hold beyond the connected case. A precise formulation can be stated
as follows.
Conjecture. Let ∆ be an infinite thick irreducible compact spherical building of rank at
least 2. Then ∆ is the spherical building associated with a semisimple algebraic group over a
non-discrete locally compact field if and only if ∆ is strongly transitive.
Here again, one could even replace strong transitivity by chamber transitivity in this
conjecture. Historically, a similar problem had been suggested by J. Tits in the 1970’s for
finite buildings. More precisely, Tits conjectured that a finite thick irreducible building of
rank ≥ 2 should be the building associated with a finite simple group of Lie type if and only
if the building has a strongly transitive automorphism group, see [Tit74, Conjecture 11.5.1].
Tits’ hope was that this could be helpful to the classification of the finite simple groups, which
was an ongoing project at the time. Ironically, the latter classification was achieved first, and
then used by Buekenhout and Van Maldeghem in their proof that Tits’ conjecture is indeed
accurate, see [BVM94].
As mentioned above, the conjecture is certainly true for connected buildings by the work
of Burns and Spatzier; we may therefore assume that ∆ is totally disconnected, since any
disconnected compact building is so. Moreover, Grundhöfer, Kramer, Van Maldeghem and
Weiss have proved that, under the same hypotheses as the conjecture, the building ∆ is the
spherical building associated with a semisimple algebraic group over a non-discrete locally
compact field if and only if ∆ is Moufang: this follows from [GKVMW12, Theorem 1.1].
As is well known, Tits proved that every thick irreducible spherical building of rank ≥ 3 is
Moufang (see [Tit74, Addenda]), so that the conjecture above can be reduced to the following
one, which appears as Question 1.4 in [GKVMW12].
Conjecture (Reformulation). Let ∆ be an infinite thick irreducible compact totally disconnected spherical building of rank 2. If ∆ is strongly transitive, then ∆ is Moufang.
In the rest of this paper, we shall therefore focus on compact spherical buildings of rank 2,
also called compact polygons. More precisely, a compact polygon of diameter m is called
a compact m-gon. It is irreducible if and only if m ≥ 3.
2

Our first main result may be viewed as a first step towards the conjecture above.
Theorem A. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3
and let G be a closed subgroup of the group Auttop(∆) of topological automorphisms which is
strongly transitive on ∆. The following assertions are equivalent.
(i) ∆ is Moufang.
(ii) For each panel π of ∆, the closure in Homeo(Cham(π)) of the group of projectivities
Π(π) acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
(iii) For each panel π of ∆, the closure of the natural image of StabG (π) in Homeo(Cham(π))
acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
The notion of a convergence group is recalled in Subsection 4.1 while the group of projectivities Π(π) is defined in Subsection 4.2. Conditions (i) and (ii) are both independent
of the group G. In fact, Condition (ii) in Theorem A implies in particular that the closure in Homeo(Cham(π)) of the group of projectivities Π(π) is a locally compact group (see
Lemma 4.1 below). In the case of connected compact polygons, the latter property in turn
is known to be equivalent to the Moufang condition, without assuming any extra homogeneity assumption on ∆ a priori (see [Löw81, Theorem 5.1] or [SBG+ 95, Theorem 66.1]). If
one believes that the connected case is representative of the general case, one should therefore not expect Condition (ii) from Theorem A to be satisfied by all infinite compact totally
disconnected polygons.
We point out the following corollary of Theorem A.
Corollary B (Caprace–Monod). Let X be a locally finite thick irreducible affine building
of rank 3. If X is strongly transitive, then the building at infinity X∞ is Moufang. In
particular X is the Bruhat–Tits building associated with a semisimple algebraic group over a
non-Archimedean local field.
The special case of Corollary B where X is of type Ã2 was obtained by Van Maldeghem and
Van Steen in [VMVS98, Main Theorem], while the general case has been obtained by Caprace
and Monod in [CM15, Corollary E] using CAT(0) geometry. Our approach to Theorem A is
different, but was partly inspired by theirs: instead of the CAT(0) Levi decomposition used
in their work, we use a purely algebraic counterpart of that result, due to Baumgartner and
Willis [BW04], and valid in the realm of totally disconnected locally compact groups.
The basic result that makes the structure theory of locally compact groups available in
the study of compact buildings is the theorem, due to Burns–Spatzier and valid for all thick
irreducible compact spherical building ∆ of rank ≥ 2, asserting that the topological automorphism group Auttop(∆) is a locally compact group, see [BS87a, Theorem 2.1]. Equivalently,
there exists an identity neighbourhood in the group Auttop(∆) endowed with the compactopen topology that is compact. Our second main result is a compactness criterion for more
general subsets of Auttop(∆) in the rank 2 case. Notice that we do not make any transitivity
assumption on the automorphism group.
Theorem C. Let ∆ be a thick compact m-gon with m ≥ 3 and C, C ′ be opposite chambers
of ∆. Denote by D0 and D1 the two chambers adjacent to (but different from) C in the
apartment containing C and C ′ and by v0 (resp. v1 ) the common vertex of C and D0 (resp.
3

E1
v1
D1

E0
v0
C

D0

C′
Figure 1: Illustration of Theorem C.
D1 ). Let also E0 (resp. E1 ) be a chamber having vertex v0 (resp. v1 ) but different from C and
D0 (resp. D1 ). Let finally U and U ′ be closed subsets of Cham ∆ such that every chamber of
U is opposite every chamber of U ′ . Then for all ε > 0, the (possibly empty) set


ϕ(C) ∈ U, ϕ(C ′ ) ∈ U ′ ,







ρ(ϕ(C), ϕ(Bvi (Di , ε))) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1}, 


Jε (C, C ′ , U, U ′ , E0 , E1 ) := ϕ ∈ Auttop(∆) ρ(ϕ(Di ), ϕ(Bvi (C, ε))) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1},




ρ(ϕ(C), ϕ(Ei )) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1},






ρ(ϕ(Di ), ϕ(Ei )) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1}
is compact, where ρ is some fixed metric associated to the topology on Cham ∆ and Bv (C, r)
denotes the open ball in Cham(v) centered at C and of radius r (with respect to the metric ρ).

Remark that the conclusion of Theorem C is also valid for irreducible compact spherical
buildings of higher rank, but the proof that we are aware of in that case is very indirect: one
deduces it from the fact that those buildings are Moufang, hence are buildings at infinity of
Bruhat-Tits buildings, via the works of Tits [Tit74, Addenda] and Grundhöfer–Kramer–Van
Maldeghem–Weiss [GKVMW12, Theorem 1.1].
A particular case of this criterion is the following result, which can be seen as a topological version of a well-known theorem [Tit74, Theorem 4.1.1] of Tits. Indeed, the latter
basically states that L0 (C, C ′ ) (as defined below) is reduced to the identity in every thick
(not necessarily topological) spherical building.
Corollary D. Let ∆ be a thick compact m-gon with m ≥ 3 and C, C ′ be opposite chambers
of ∆. There exists ε > 0 such that the set

Lε (C, C ′ ) := ϕ ∈ Auttop(∆) | ρ(X, ϕ(X)) ≤ ε ∀X ∈ E1 (C) ∪ {C ′ }

is compact, where ρ is some fixed metric associated to the topology on Cham ∆ and E1 (C)
denotes the set of chambers adjacent to C.
We remark that the local compactness theorem of Burns and Spatzier in the rank 2 case
can now be recovered as an immediate consequence of Corollary D. Actually, our proof of
Theorem C was inspired by their work; note however that our approach is uniform in the
sense that it does not require to distinguish the cases where the diameter of ∆ is even or
odd. In the particular case of compact projective planes (i.e. for m = 3), this result was also
proved by Grundhöfer in a very short and elegant way, see [Gru86, Theorem 1].
4

Corollary E (Burns–Spatzier). Let ∆ be a thick compact m-gon with m ≥ 3. Then Auttop(∆)
is locally compact.
One could ask if the definition of the set Jε (C, C ′ , U, U ′ , E0 , E1 ) whose compactness is
ensured by Theorem C is optimal: is there any natural bigger subset of Auttop(∆) whose
compactness could be proved as well for all compact polygons? In that direction, we suggest
the following question; we feel that the answer is likely to be positive.
Question. Under the same hypotheses and with the same notation as in Theorem
following set compact?

ϕ(C) ∈ U, ϕ(C ′ ) ∈ U ′ ,

′
′
J˜ε (C, C , U, U , E0 , E1 ) := ϕ ∈ Auttop(∆) ρ(ϕ(C), ϕ(Ei )) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1},

ρ(ϕ(Di ), ϕ(Ei )) ≥ ε ∀i ∈ {0, 1}

C, is the



.



Actually, this question is a natural generalization of the well-known conjecture that in
any compact projective plane, the stabilizer of four points, none three of which are collinear,
is compact (see [SBG+ 95, Section 44]). It should also be emphasized that this question is
strongly related to the conjecture mentioned at the beginning of this introduction. Indeed,
in order to prove the conjecture, it only remains to show that Condition (ii) or (iii) in Theorem A is satisfied by any strongly transitive compact polygon. A positive answer to the
above question would ensure that a slightly weaker condition than (iii) holds for all compact
polygons; in view of Theorem A, this would be an important step toward the proof of the
conjecture.
The proof of Theorem C is given in Section 3, while Theorem A is proved in Section 4
(see Corollary 4.6, Proposition 4.9 and Theorem 4.19). Some of the preparatory results of
Section 3 are also used in Section 4 to prove the implication (iii) ⇒ (i) of Theorem A.

Acknowledgement
The results of this paper are the outcomes of my Master’s thesis, which was supervised by
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace. I am very grateful to him for suggesting the topic and for his
support and guidance throughout the preparation of this work. I also thank Linus Kramer
for several comments on the history of compact polygons.

2

Preliminaries

In this section, we give the definition and first properties of compact spherical buildings and
recall what the strong transitivity and the Moufang property exactly are.

2.1

Compact spherical buildings

Let ∆ be a spherical building of rank k viewed as a simplicial complex, and denote by ∆r the
set of simplices of dimension r − 1 in ∆ (for r ∈ {1, . . . , k}). We fix an ordering of the k types
of vertices in ∆. Then ∆ is called a compact spherical building if the set Vert ∆ := ∆1
carries a compact topology such that the set Cham ∆ := ∆k is closed in (Vert ∆)k (where a
chamber of ∆ is viewed as a k-tuple of vertices, ordered according to their type). For each
r ∈ {1, . . . , k}, ∆r is given the induced topology from the product topology on (Vert ∆)r .
5

We also say that ∆ is connected or totally disconnected when Cham ∆ has the said property.
When ∆ is thick and has no factor of rank 1, one can actually show that the topology on Vert ∆
is metrizable (see [GKVMW12, Proposition 6.14]). We will therefore always suppose that the
topology comes from a metric. The topological automorphism group Auttop(∆) of ∆ is
the group of all automorphisms of ∆ whose restriction to each ∆r are homeomorphisms. The
group Auttop(∆) is endowed with the topology induced from the compact-open topology of
C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆) (where C(X, Y ) denotes the set of continuous maps from X to Y ). Since
Cham ∆ is compact and metrizable, it also actually is the topology of uniform convergence.
We can now give the first properties of compact buildings. The following results all come
from article [BS87a] of Burns and Spatzier and are almost direct consequences of the definition
of compact buildings, except Lemma 2.8 whose proof is more technical.
Proposition 2.1. Let ∆ be a compact spherical building of rank k. The set
{(R, R′ ) ∈ ∆2r | R is opposite R′ }
is open in ∆2r for each 1 ≤ r ≤ k.
Proof. See [BS87a, Proposition 1.9].
Proposition 2.2. Let C be a chamber of a compact spherical building ∆ and R be a face of
a chamber opposite C. If Rn → R and Cn → C, then projRn Cn → projR C.
Proof. See [BS87a, Proposition 1.10].
Corollary 2.3. Let R and R′ be two opposite residues of a compact spherical building ∆.
The projection projR |R′ : Cham R′ → Cham R is a homeomorphism.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 2.2.
In a polygon (i.e. a spherical building of rank 2), we will say that a gallery (C1 , . . . , Cn )
stammers if Ci = Ci−1 for some i ∈ {2, . . . , n}. The two following results are true in any
usual (non-topological) polygon. Recall that an m-gon is a polygon of diameter m.
Lemma 2.4. Let ∆ be an m-gon. A gallery (C1 , . . . , Cn ) in ∆ with n ≤ m + 1 is minimal if
and only if it does not stammer. In particular, there is no non-stammering closed gallery in
∆ having less than 2m chambers.
Proof. This is a direct consequence of [BS87a, Lemma 0.4].
Corollary 2.5. Let ∆ be a polygon and x, y be distinct non-opposite vertices of ∆. There is
a unique minimal gallery with initial vertex x and final vertex y, which we denote by [x, y].
Proof. The existence of two minimal galleries from x to y would contradict Lemma 2.4.
When ∆ is a polygon, we denote by D : Vert ∆ × Vert ∆ → N the graph distance in the
1-dimensional simplicial complex ∆.
Lemma 2.6. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and x, y be distinct non-opposite vertices of ∆. If
xn → x, yn → y and D(xn , yn ) = D(x, y) for all n ∈ N, then [xn , yn ] → [x, y].
Proof. See [BS87a, Lemma 1.12].
6

We say that two vertices v and v ′ in an m-gon are almost opposite if D(v, v ′ ) = m − 1
(note that D(v, v ′ ) = m if and only if v and v ′ are opposite). We then have a result similar
to Proposition 2.1 for almost opposite vertices.
Proposition 2.7. Let ∆ be a compact polygon. The set
{(v, v ′ ) ∈ (Vert ∆)2 | v is almost opposite v ′ }
is open in (Vert ∆)2 .
Proof. See [BS87a, Lemma 1.13].
The following result will finally be helpful in the proofs of Theorems A and C.
Lemma 2.8. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact m-gon with m ≥ 3. For each v ∈ Vert ∆,
no chamber of Cham(v) is isolated in Cham(v). In particular, Cham(v) is infinite.
Proof. See [BS87a, Lemma 1.14].

2.2

Strong transitivity and the Moufang property

Let ∆ be a spherical building and Aut(∆) be the automorphism group of ∆. A subgroup G
of Aut(∆) is said to be strongly transitive if G is transitive on the set of all pairs (A, C)
where A is an apartment of ∆ and C is a chamber of A. If ∆ is a usual (non-topological)
building, we say that ∆ is strongly transitive when Aut(∆) is strongly transitive. If ∆ is
a compact building, this terminology is rather used when Auttop(∆) is strongly transitive.
The following fact is almost immediate but worth mentioning.
Lemma 2.9. Let ∆ be a spherical building and π, π ′ be opposite panels of ∆. Let also G be
a strongly transitive subgroup of Aut(∆). Then the stabilizer StabG (π, π ′ ) of π and π ′ in G
acts 2-transitively on Cham(π).
Proof. Let C1 6= D1 and C2 6= D2 be chambers in Cham(π). We want to find g ∈ StabG (π, π ′ )
such that g(C1 ) = C2 and g(D1 ) = D2 . Let A1 (resp. A2 ) be the apartment of ∆ containing
C1 (resp. C2 ), D1 (resp. D2 ) and π ′ . By strong transitivity of G, there is g ∈ G such that
g(A1 ) = A2 and g(C1 ) = C2 . Clearly, we also have g(π) = π, g(π ′ ) = π ′ and g(D1 ) = D2 .
The Moufang property is another transitivity hypothesis on the automorphism group of
a building. We say that a thick irreducible spherical building ∆ is Moufang (or satisfies the
Moufang property) if for each root α of ∆, the root group
Uα := {g ∈ Aut(∆) | g fixes every chamber having a panel in α \ ∂α}
acts transitively on the set of apartments of ∆ containing α. A natural wish would be to
replace Aut(∆) with Auttop(∆) in the case where ∆ is a compact building, but this is actually
not necessary. Indeed, one can show that every element of a root group is automatically
continuous, hence contained in Auttop(∆) (see [GKVMW12, Corollary 6.17]).

3

A compactness criterion for subsets of Auttop(∆)

This section is dedicated to the proof of Theorem C which gives, in a compact polygon ∆, a
sufficient condition on subsets of Auttop(∆) for being compact.
7

3.1

Relative compactness in Auttop(∆)

To prove Theorem C, we need some characterization of relative compactness in Auttop(∆).
The tool that will help us is the Arzela-Ascoli theorem. For the reader’s convenience, we
recall its statement below. First recall that when X is a topological space and Y is a metric
space, a subset F of C(X, Y ) is said to be equicontinuous at x0 ∈ X if, for all ε > 0, there
exists a neighbourhood U of x0 such that
f (U ) ⊆ B(f (x0 ), ε)

for all f ∈ F,

where B(x, r) denotes the open ball of radius r centered at x. The set F is then called
equicontinuous on X if it is equicontinuous at each point of X.
Theorem (Arzela-Ascoli). Let X be a topological space and Y be a metric space. Let F be a
subset of C(X, Y ). If F is equicontinuous on X and if {f (x) | f ∈ F} is relatively compact
in Y for all x ∈ X, then F is relatively compact in C(X, Y ) equipped with the compact-open
topology. The converse holds if X is locally compact.
Proof. See [Mun00, Theorem 47.1].
We can now already give some characterization of relative compactness in Auttop(∆).
Lemma 3.1. Let ∆ be a compact spherical building. A set S ⊆ Auttop(∆) is relatively
compact in Auttop(∆) if and only if S and S −1 are equicontinuous on Cham ∆.
Proof. First assume that S is relatively compact in Auttop(∆). The set S is thus also relatively compact in C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆), hence S is equicontinuous on Cham ∆ by ArzelaAscoli. Since Auttop(∆) is a topological group, the inverse function of Auttop(∆) is a homeomorphism and S −1 is in turn relatively compact and equicontinuous on Cham ∆.
Conversely, assume that S and S −1 are equicontinuous. We want to show that S is
relatively compact in Auttop(∆). We already know by Arzela-Ascoli that S is relatively
compact in C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆). A way to conclude is therefore to prove that the closure of
S in C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆) is contained in Auttop(∆). We thus consider a sequence ϕn → ϕ
with {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆) and ϕ ∈ C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆) and prove that ϕ ∈ Auttop(∆). As
a direct consequence of the fact that the adjacency relation is closed in a compact building,
ϕ is a (continuous) building morphism. To complete the proof, it suffices to find another
such morphism ψ so that ϕψ = ψϕ = id∆ . Since S −1 is equicontinuous and thus relatively
compact in C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆), it follows that some subsequence of (ϕ−1
n ) converges to an
element of C(Cham ∆, Cham ∆). Taking this limit for ψ, we obtain ϕψ = ψϕ = id∆ .
To prove that a given subset of Auttop(∆) is relatively compact, we will generally proceed
by contradiction. In this context, the next proposition will be helpful. We introduce a
convenient definition to state it.
Definition 3.2. Let ∆ be a compact polygon. Two convergent sequences an → a and bn → b
in Vert ∆ are said to be collapsed by a sequence {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆) if a 6= b and if ϕn an → x
and ϕn bn → x for some x ∈ Vert ∆.
Proposition 3.3. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and S ⊆ Auttop(∆). If S is not relatively
compact in Auttop(∆), then there exist two sequences an → a and bn → b in Vert ∆ which
are collapsed by some sequence (ϕn ) in S or in S −1 .
8

Proof. Let S be a subset of Auttop(∆) which is not relatively compact. By Lemma 3.1, S
or S −1 is not equicontinuous on Cham ∆ and therefore also not equicontinuous on Vert ∆.
Suppose S is not equicontinuous. Then there exist some x ∈ Vert ∆ and ε > 0 such that
for every neighbourhood U of x, there exists ψ ∈ S satisfying
 ψ(U ) 6⊆ B(ψx, ε). In other
words, for every n ∈ N∗ there exist ψn ∈ S and yn ∈ B x, n1 such that ψn yn 6∈ B(ψn x, ε).
Clearly yn → x and we can assume by passing to a subsequence that ψn x → a and ψn yn → b
for some a 6= b. Hence, the sequences an = ψn x → a and bn = ψn yn → b are collapsed by
{ϕn = ψn−1 } ⊆ S −1 . The case where S −1 is not equicontinuous is identical but gives two
sequences which are collapsed by a sequence in (S −1 )−1 = S.

3.2

Sequences collapsed by a sequence of automorphisms

In this section, we consider a compact polygon ∆. Proposition 3.3 states that one can deduce
from non-relative compactness of a subset S of Auttop(∆) that there exist two sequences
an → a and bn → b of vertices of ∆ collapsed by a sequence in S or in S −1 . The goal
of this subsection is to show that we can actually obtain additional constraints on these
two sequences. The following result of Burns and Spatzier already goes in this direction by
asserting that we can assume D(an , bn ) = D(a, b) = 2.
Proposition 3.4. Let ∆ be a thick compact polygon. If there exist two sequences an → a and
bn → b in Vert ∆ collapsed by a sequence {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆), then there exist two sequences
a′n → a′ and b′n → b′ collapsed by (ϕn ) and such that D(a′n , b′n ) = D(a′ , b′ ) = 2 for all n ∈ N.
Proof. See [BS87a, Discussion between Assertions 2.3 and 2.4].
Now suppose that we are given a converging sequence of apartments An → A, i.e. 2m con(n)
(n)
(n)
verging sequences vi → vi (i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}) where v0 , . . . , v2m−1 (resp. v0 , . . . , v2m−1 )
are the vertices of an apartment An (resp. A). In this context, we can generally even assume
that the middle vertex cn of an and bn (which are such that D(an , bn ) = 2) is a vertex of An .
For this reason we introduce the following definition.
Definition 3.5. Let ∆ be a compact polygon. Two convergent sequences an → a and bn → b
in Vert ∆ are said to be centered at cn → c if D(an , cn ) = D(cn , bn ) = 1 for all n ∈ N. This
also implies that D(a, c) = D(c, b) = 1.
Before proving the announced result, we show the next lemma, which provides a way to
go from a sequence of vertices to a sequence of opposite vertices.
Lemma 3.6. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and let an → a and bn → b be two sequences in
Vert ∆ centered at cn → c and collapsed by a sequence {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆). Let also c′n → c′
be a sequence in Vert ∆ such that c′n (resp. c′ ) is opposite cn (resp. c) for all n ∈ N. Suppose
that ϕn cn → c̃ and ϕn c′n → c̃′ for some opposite vertices c̃ and c̃′ . Denote by Cn (resp. Dn ) the
chamber whose vertices are cn and an (resp. bn ) and by a′n (resp. b′n ) the vertex of projc′n (Cn )
(resp. projc′n (Dn )) different from c′n . Then the sequences (a′n ) and (b′n ) converge, are centered
at (c′n ) and are collapsed by (ϕn ).
Proof. By Proposition 2.2, the sequence (a′n ) converges to a′ , the vertex of projc′ (C) different from c′ where C is the chamber having vertices c and a. The sequence (b′n ) converges to b′ defined in the same way and a′ 6= b′ since a 6= b. The fact that these two
sequences are collapsed by (ϕn ) directly comes from the observation that the two sequences
9

Cn

a′n

an

c′n

cn
Dn

b′n

bn

Figure 2: Illustration of Lemma 3.6.








ϕn projc′n (Cn ) = projϕn c′n (ϕn Cn ) and ϕn projc′n (Dn ) = projϕn c′n (ϕn Dn ) have the
same limit by Proposition 2.2.
We draw attention to the fact that it is essential to have c̃ and c̃′ opposite each other to
apply the previous lemma.
Proposition 3.7. Let ∆ be a thick compact polygon and An → A be a converging sequence
of apartments of ∆. If there exist two sequences an → a and bn → b in Vert ∆ collapsed by a
sequence {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆) and if ϕn An → Ã for some apartment Ã of ∆, then there exist
two sequences a′n → a′ and b′n → b′ centered at c′n → c′ and collapsed by some subsequence of
(ϕn ), with c′n ∈ An for all n ∈ N.
Proof. By Proposition 3.4, we can assume that the two sequences an → a and bn → b are
centered at some sequence of vertices cn → c. Let d be a vertex of A opposite c (to find such
a vertex, one can take a gallery from c to any vertex of A and extend this one with chambers
of A until an opposite vertex is reached) and let dn be the vertex of An (for n ∈ N) such
that dn → d. Denote also by d˜ the limit of (ϕn dn ). By Proposition 2.1, cn is opposite dn for
sufficiently large n. We can also assume by passing to a subsequence that (ϕn cn ) converges
˜ then we can immediately complete the proof using Lemma 3.6.
to some c̃. If c̃ is opposite d,
˜ then we cannot proceed in this way. In this case,
If, on the contrary, c̃ is not opposite d,
pick a sequence en → e with en (resp. e) adjacent to dn (resp. d) but not contained in An
(resp. A). It is easy to show that such a sequence exists, using for example Proposition 2.2.
Since e is almost opposite c, en is almost opposite cn for sufficiently large n (Proposition 2.7).
For these n, there is a gallery from dn to cn of length m = diam ∆ passing through en .
(n) (n)
(n)
(n)
Let dn = e0 , e1 = en , . . . , em−1 , em = cn be the vertices of this gallery, as illustrated in
(n)

(n)

Figure 3. After passing to subsequences, we can suppose that ei → ei and ϕn ei → ẽi for
˜ the gallery of
each i ∈ {0, . . . , m}. In particular, ẽ0 = d˜ and ẽm = c̃. Since c̃ is not opposite d,
˜
vertices d = ẽ0 , ẽ1 , . . . , ẽm = c̃ must stammer. This means that there exists k ∈ {0, . . . , m − 2}
such that ẽk = ẽk+2 (if there is more than one such k, then we choose the smallest one). In

An

(n)

e1

(n)

dn

(n)

ek+1

= en
(n)

ek

em−1
(n)

ek+2

c′n
Figure 3: Illustration of Proposition 3.7.
10

cn

(n)

other words, since ek 6= ek+2 , the two sequences ek

(n)

→ ek and ek+2 → ek+2 are centered at

(n)

ek+1 → ek+1 and collapsed by (ϕn ). Now take c′ a vertex of A such that D(c′ , d) = m − k − 1
and c′n the vertex of An (for n ∈ N) such that c′n → c′ . Thanks to this choice, ek+1 is opposite
c′ and ẽk+1 is opposite the limit c̃′ of (ϕn c′n ) (in the particular case where ẽ1 ∈ Ã, we choose
c′ so that the minimal gallery from d˜ to c̃′ does not contain ẽ1 ). We can therefore apply
(n)
(n)
(n)
Lemma 3.6 to the sequences ek → ek and ek+2 → ek+2 centered at ek+1 → ek+1 and the
′
′
opposite sequence cn → c .
The following result eventually shows that we can even suppose that one of the two
sequences which are collapsed is contained in the sequence of apartments An → A. The proof
only works when the diameter m of ∆ is at least 3, i.e. when ∆ is irreducible.
Proposition 3.8. Let ∆ be a thick compact m-gon with m ≥ 3 and An → A be a converging
sequence of apartments of ∆. If there exist two sequences an → a and bn → b in Vert ∆
collapsed by a sequence {ϕn } ⊆ Auttop(∆) and if ϕn An → Ã for some apartment Ã of ∆,
then there exist two sequences a′n → a′ and b′n → b′ centered at c′n → c′ and collapsed by some
subsequence of (ϕn ), with c′n ∈ An and a′n ∈ An for all n ∈ N.
Proof. By Proposition 3.7, we can assume that the sequences an → a and bn → b are centered
at vn → v with vn ∈ An (and thus v ∈ A). Let x̃ be the common limit of (ϕn an ) and (ϕn bn ).
If x̃ is a vertex of Ã, then consider sn → s the sequence of vertices with sn ∈ An and
s ∈ A such that ϕn sn → x̃. Since a 6= b, we can assume without loss of generality that a 6= s.
The sequences an → a and sn → s are then collapsed by (ϕn ), which ends the proof.
Suppose now that x̃ 6∈ Ã. Let vn′ (resp. v ′ ) be the vertex of An (resp. A) opposite
vn (resp. v), ṽ ′ be the limit of (ϕn vn′ ) and wn → w be a sequence of vertices where wn
(resp. w) is a vertex of An (resp. A) and is adjacent to vn′ (resp. v ′ ). Consider also a sequence
un → u with un (resp. u) adjacent to wn (resp. w) but outside An (resp. A). Passing to a
subsequence if necessary, we can assume that ϕn un → ũ for some vertex ũ (adjacent to the

dn
Cn
en

un
vn′

wn
c′n

An
vn
cn
an

bn
fn

Cn′

Figure 4: Illustration of Proposition 3.8.
11

limit of (ϕn wn )). Once again, if ũ ∈ Ã then the proof is completed. We therefore assume that
ũ 6∈ Ã. For sufficiently large n, an is almost opposite un and bn is almost opposite vn′ (see
Proposition 2.7). We can thus draw [an , un ] and [bn , vn′ ] as in Figure 4. Thanks to Lemma 2.6,
ϕn [an , un ] → [x̃, ũ] and ϕn [bn , vn′ ] → [x̃, ṽ ′ ]. The fact that ũ 6∈ Ã ensures that the two galleries
[x̃, ũ] and [x̃, ṽ ′ ] have no shared chambers. Let cn be the vertex of [bn , vn′ ] adjacent to bn , dn
be the vertex of [un , an ] adjacent to un , en be the vertex of [dn , an ] adjacent to dn , and Cn be
the chamber whose vertices are dn and en . The vertices en and cn are opposite for large n.
Now, let Cn′ be the projection of Cn on cn and fn be the vertex of Cn′ different from cn . Since
dn and cn are almost opposite as well as the limits of (ϕn dn ) and (ϕn cn ), Lemma 2.6 gives
ϕn fn → x̃ and the two sequences (bn ) and (fn ) centered at (cn ) are collapsed by (ϕn ).
Let finally c′ be a vertex of A at distance 2 from v ′ such that c′ is opposite the limit of
(cn ) and let c′n be the vertex of An (for n ∈ N) such that c′n → c′ . As the limits of (ϕn cn )
and (ϕn c′n ) are opposite, we can apply Lemma 3.6 to get two sequences of vertices centered
at c′n → c′ , collapsed by (ϕn ) and so that one of them is contained in An → A.

3.3

Proof of the compactness criterion

The following lemma is almost evident but will play an important role in the next results. As
in the statement of Theorem C, we write Bv (C, r) for the open ball in Cham(v) centered at
C and of radius r.
Lemma 3.9. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and v (n) → v and v ′(n) → v ′ be two sequences in
Vert ∆ such that v (n) (resp. v) is opposite v ′(n) (resp. v ′ ) for all n ∈ N. Let also X (n) → X
be a sequence in Cham ∆ such that X (n) (resp. X) has vertex v (n) (resp. v) for all n ∈ N.
For each η > 0, there exists η ′ > 0 such that
Bv′(n) (projv′(n) (X (n) ), η ′ ) ⊆ projv′(n) (Bv(n) (X (n) , η)) for all n ∈ N.
Proof. Fix η > 0 and suppose by contradiction that η ′ does not exist. This means that we can
find, after passage to a subsequence, a sequence (Y (n) ) with Y (n) ∈ Bv′(n) (projv′(n) (X (n) ), n1 )
but Y (n) 6∈ projv′(n) (Bv(n) (X (n) , η)) for all n ∈ N∗ . By Proposition 2.2, Y (n) → projv′ (X) and
thus projv(n) (Y (n) ) → projv (projv′ (X)) = X. This contradicts the fact that projv(n) (Y (n) ) 6∈
Bv(n) (X (n) , η) for all n ∈ N∗ .
The next definition will turn out to be convenient.
Definition 3.10. Let X (n) → X and Y (n) → Y be two sequences in Cham ∆ with X (n)
(resp. X) adjacent to Y (n) (resp. Y ) in vertex v (n) (resp. v) for all n ∈ N. Let (ϕn ) be a
sequence in Auttop(∆) such that ϕn Y (n) → Ỹ for some Ỹ ∈ Cham ∆. For η > 0, we say
that (X, Y ) is η-correct (the sequences Xn → X, Yn → Y and (ϕn ) being clear from the
context) if for each sequence (T (n) ) with T (n) ∈ Bv(n) (X (n) , η) the sequence (ϕn T (n) ) does not
accumulate at Ỹ . We say that (X, Y ) is correct if it is η-correct for some η > 0.
The following lemma is the key result for the proof of Theorem C. Indeed, it makes it
possible to find some kind of uniform convergence from just a simple convergence. Figure 5
should make the statement easier to digest.
Lemma 3.11. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and A(n) → A be a converging sequence of apart(n)
(n)
ments of ∆. Let v0 , . . . , v2m−1 (resp. v0 , . . . , v2m−1 ) be the vertices of A(n) (resp. A) such
12

(n)

(n)

Cm

Cm−1

(n)

vm−1

(n)

vm+1

T (n)

R(n)
r (n)

A(n)
(n)

v1

(n)
v0

(n)

C1

(n)

C0

S (n)
b(n)

Figure 5: Illustration of Lemma 3.11.
(n)

(n)

that vi → vi for i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1} and let Ci (resp. Ci ) be the chamber having vertices
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
vi (resp. vi ) and vi+1 (resp. vi+1 ) for i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}, where v2m := v0 and v2m := v0 .
(n)

Let also b(n) → b 6∈ A be a sequence in Vert ∆ such that b(n) is adjacent to v0 for all n ∈ N.
Fix η > 0. Then there exists η ′ > 0 such that if (ϕn ) is a sequence in Auttop(∆) satisfying
(n)

(a) ϕn vi → ṽi for each i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1} and the set of vertices ṽ0 , . . . , ṽ2m−1 form an
(n)
apartment Ã (whose chambers are denoted by C̃0 , . . . , C̃2m−1 with ϕn Ci → C̃i ),
(b) (Cm+1 , Cm ) is η-correct (with respect to (ϕn )),
(c) ϕn b(n) → ṽ1 ;
(n)

then for each sequence (R(n) ) with R(n) ∈ Bv(n) (Cm−2 , η ′ ) for all n ∈ N, ϕn R(n) → C̃m−2 .
m−1

Proof. Since b 6∈ A, we can assume that b(n) 6∈ A(n) for all n ∈ N. We consider the balls
(n)
(n)
Bv(n) (Cm+1 , η) and apply Lemma 3.9 twice: first with the sequences vm+1 → vm+1 and
m+1

(n)

b(n) → b and then with the sequences b(n) → b and vm−1 → vm−1 . This gives η ′ > 0 such that
(n)

(n)

Bv(n) (Cm−2 , η ′ ) ⊆ projv(n) (projb(n) (Bv(n) (Cm+1 , η))) for all n ∈ N. (∗)
m−1

m+1

m−1

We now prove that η ′ satisfies the statement.
(n)
Consider a sequence (R(n) ) with R(n) ∈ Bv(n) (Cm−2 , η ′ ) and suppose for a contradicm−1

tion that there exists a sequence (ϕn ) satisfying the conditions of the statement but such
that (ϕn R(n) ) does not converge to C̃m−2 . Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that
ϕn R(n) → R̃ 6= C̃m−2 and R(n) → R. Now take S (n) = projb(n) (R(n) ) and S = projb (R).
By Proposition 2.2, S (n) → S. Finally, define T (n) = projv(n) (S (n) ) and T = projvm+1 (S).
m+1

(n)

Once again, T (n) → T . By (∗), T (n) ∈ Bv(n) (Cm+1 , η) for all n ∈ N. We now show that the
m+1

convergence of (ϕn R(n) ) to R̃ 6= C̃m−2 necessarily implies ϕn T (n) → C̃m , which is impossible
since (Cm+1 , Cm ) is η-correct.
13

(n)

Denote by r (n) the vertex of R(n) different from vm−1 and by r̃ the vertex of R̃ different
from ṽm−1 . Since b(n) and r (n) are almost opposite (for large enough n) as well as ṽ1 and r̃,
ϕn [b(n) , r (n) ] → [ṽ1 , r̃] (Lemma 2.6) and in particular ϕn S (n) → C̃1 . As v1 is opposite vm+1 ,
we therefore get by Proposition 2.2:


(n)
(n)
ϕn T
= ϕn projv(n) (S ) = projϕ v(n) (ϕn S (n) ) → projṽm+1 (C̃1 ) = C̃m .
m+1

n m+1

We are now able to prove Theorem C.
Proof of Theorem C. If ∆ is finite, then Auttop(∆) and Jε := Jε (C, C ′ , U, U ′ , E0 , E1 ) are finite and the latter is thus compact. We will therefore assume that ∆ is infinite. By Lemma 2.8,
this implies that Cham(v) is infinite for each vertex v of ∆.
Since Jε is closed in Auttop(∆), it is compact if and only if it is relatively compact in
Auttop(∆). Suppose for a contradiction that it is not relatively compact. By Proposition 3.3,
there exist two sequences a(n) → a and b(n) → b collapsed by a sequence (ϕn ) in Jε or in Jε−1 .
Observe both cases:
(n)

(n)

(1) If {ϕn } ⊆ Jε , then we define C (n) = C, C ′(n) = C ′ , Di = Di and Ei = Ei for all
n ∈ N and i ∈ {0, 1}. Let also A(n) = A be the apartment containing C and C ′ (for all
n ∈ N). Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that ϕn C (n) → C̃ and ϕn C ′(n) → C̃ ′ .
By definition of Jε , C̃ and C̃ ′ are opposite, which means that ϕn A(n) → Ã, the apartment
containing C̃ and C̃ ′ . The definition of Jε is also such that (C, Di ) and (Di , C) are ε(n)
correct for i ∈ {0, 1}. Finally, we can assume that ϕn Ei → Ẽi and Ẽi 6∈ Ã for i ∈ {0, 1}.
(n)

(n)

′(n) = ϕ−1 C ′ , G
(2) If {ϕn } ⊆ Jε−1 , then we define F (n) = ϕ−1
= ϕ−1
=
n C, F
n
n Di and Hi
i
−1
ϕn Ei for all n ∈ N and i ∈ {0, 1}. Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that
(n)
(n)
F (n) → F , F ′(n) → F ′ , Gi → Gi and Hi → Hi . Note that F is opposite F ′ since
(n) (resp. A) the apartment containing F (n)
{ϕ−1
n } ⊆ Jε , which allows us to denote by A
′(n)
′
(resp. F ) and F
(resp. F ) for all n ∈ N. By definition of Jε , Hi 6∈ A. Moreover,
(n)
(n)
ϕn F
= C → C =: F̃ , ϕn F ′(n) = C ′ → C ′ =: F˜′ and ϕn Hi = Ei → Ei =: H̃i .
(n)
′
Hence, ϕn A → Ã, the apartment containing F̃ and F̃ . It is easy to see that (F, Gi )
and (Gi , F ) are ε-correct (with respect to (ϕn )) and clearly H̃i 6∈ Ã for i ∈ {0, 1}.

The situations in (1) and (2) are exactly the same, replacing letters F , G and H in (2) by
letters C, D and E respectively. For this reason, we from now on assume that we are in case
(n)
(n)
(1) and only use the objects C (n) → C, C ′(n) → C ′ , Di → Di and Ei → Ei satisfying the
conditions stated above. Let v0 , . . . , v2m−1 be the vertices of A in the natural order so that
(n)
(n)
E0 has vertex v0 and E1 has vertex v1 . Once again, v0 , . . . , v2m−1 denotes the corresponding
vertices in A(n) and ṽ0 , . . . , ṽ2m−1 the corresponding vertices in Ã.
Claim 1. (X, Y ) is correct for any two adjacent chambers X and Y in A.
Proof of the claim: In the proof of this claim, we say that vi is correct if (X, Y ) and (Y, X)
are correct where X and Y are the two chambers of A having vertex vi . We already know
that v0 and v1 are correct, and we want to prove that every vertex of A is correct.
We actually show that if vi is correct, then v−i and v2−i are also correct (the indices being
(n)
considered modulo 2m). To do so, draw the minimal gallery from E0 (resp. E0 ) to vm
14

(n)

vm
C ′(n)

A(n)

Y (n)
(n)
v−i

Y ′′(n)
(n)
vi

Y ′(n)

X (n)

X ′′(n)

X ′(n)

C (n)
(n)
v0

(n)

wm−i

(n)

v1

(n)

E0

Figure 6: Illustration of Claim 1.
(n)

(n)

(n)

(resp. vm ) and denote by w1 , . . . , wm−1 (resp. w1 , . . . , wm−1 ) its vertices (see Figure 6).
(n)

By Lemma 2.6, wi → wi for each i ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1}. Now assume that vi is correct for
some i ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1}. To show that v−i is also correct, consider X a chamber of A having
vertex v−i and Y the other chamber of this apartment having vertex v−i . Project these two
chambers on wm−i by defining X ′ = projwm−i (X) and Y ′ = projwm−i (Y ), and then on vi
by defining X ′′ = projvi (X ′ ) and Y ′′ = projvi (Y ′ ). The chambers X ′′ and Y ′′ obviously are
the chambers of A having vertex vi . Define X (n) , Y (n) , X ′(n) , Y ′(n) , X ′′(n) and Y ′′(n) in the
natural way. Since vi is correct, there exists η > 0 such that (X ′′ , Y ′′ ) is η-correct. We can
(n)
(n)
(n)
assume that wm−i is opposite vi and v−i for all n ∈ N since E0 6∈ A. This allows us to go
from vi to v−i via wm−i using Lemma 3.9 twice. This gives η ′ > 0 such that
Bv(n) (X (n) , η ′ ) ⊆ projv(n) (projw(n) (Bv(n) (X ′′(n) , η))) for all n ∈ N. (∗∗)
i

m−i

−i

−i

We now show that (X, Y ) is η ′ -correct. Suppose for a contradiction that there exists (T (n) )
with T (n) ∈ Bv(n) (X (n) , η ′ ) such that (ϕn T (n) ) accumulates at Ỹ , the limit of (ϕn Y (n) ).
−i

Considering T ′(n) = projw(n) (T (n) ) and T ′′(n) = projv(n) (T ′(n) ), Proposition 2.2 directly shows
i

m−i

that (ϕn T ′′(n) ) accumulates at Ỹ ′′ , the limit of (ϕn Y ′′(n) ). This is a contradiction since
(X ′′ , Y ′′ ) is η-correct and T ′′(n) ∈ Bv(n) (X ′′(n) , η) for all n ∈ N by (∗∗). Note that we assumed
i

i ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1} but the reasoning is obviously the same for i ∈ {m + 1, . . . , 2m − 1}.
The same construction with E1 instead of E0 enables us to go from vi to v2−i . We directly
conclude that all vertices are correct since v0 and v1 are correct and vi+2 = v2−(−i) is correct
as soon as vi is. The claim stands proven.

From now on, we denote by Ci the chamber having vertices vi and vi+1 (indices being
taken modulo 2m).
Claim 2. After possible passage to a subsequence, there exists for each i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1} a
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
sequence bi → bi 6∈ A with bi adjacent to vi for all n ∈ N and ϕn bi → ṽi+1 . Similarly,
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
there exists a sequence ci → ci 6∈ A with ci adjacent to vi and ϕn ci → ṽi−1 .
15

(n)

(n)
vj+m+1 vj+m−1

d(n)

A(n)
(n)

vj−1

(n)

(n)
vj

vj+1
(n)

(n)

bj−1

bj

Figure 7: Illustration of Claim 2.
Proof of the claim: Recall that there are two sequences a(n) → a and b(n) → b collapsed by
(ϕn ). All the hypotheses of Proposition 3.8 being met, we can assume that a(n) → a and
(n)
b(n) → b are centered at some vj → vj and that a(n) ∈ A(n) for all n ∈ N. Without loss of
(n)

generality, we may assume that a(n) = vj+1 . Clearly b 6= vj+1 , and b 6= vj−1 since (Cj−1 , Cj )
(n)

(n)

is correct. The sequence bj → bj defined by bj = b(n) satisfies the statement of the claim
for i = j.
(n)
(n)
We now prove that one can construct bj−1 → bj−1 from bj → bj . Since (Cj+m+1 , Cj+m )
(n)

is correct, there is by Lemma 3.11 a sequence d(n) → d 6∈ A with d(n) adjacent to vj+m−1 such
(n)

that ϕn d(n) → ṽj+m−2 . After projection on vj−1 → vj−1 (see Lemma 3.6), there is a sequence
(n)

(n)

(n)

(n)

bj−1 → bj−1 6∈ A with bj−1 adjacent to vj−1 such that ϕn bj−1 → ṽj . By repeating this process,
(n)

we get the sequences bi → bi satisfying the statement for each i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}. Using
(n)
(n)
Lemma 3.6, there obviously also is for each vertex vi a sequence ci → ci 6∈ A with ci
(n)
(n)
adjacent to vi such that ϕn ci → ṽi−1 .

Let us now focus on Cham(v0 ). In the rest of this proof, we associate to each X ∈
(n)
Cham(v0 ) a sequence X (n) → X with X (n) ∈ Cham(v0 ). Such a sequence exists, take for
(n)
instance X (n) = projv(n) (projvm (X)) (vm being opposite v0 for sufficiently large n).
0

Claim 3. For each X ∈ Cham(v0 ), there exists ηX > 0 such that if ϕk(n) X (k(n)) → X̃ for
some subsequence (ϕk(n) ) of (ϕn ) and some chamber X̃, then ϕk(n) R(k(n)) → X̃ for each
sequence (R(n) ) with R(n) ∈ Bv(n) (X (n) , ηX ) for all n ∈ N.
0

Proof of the claim: Let X ∈ Cham(v0 ) and first assume that X 6= C, D0 . Consider the
(n)
(n)
sequence of apartments A1 → A1 where A1 is the apartment containing C (n) , X (n) and
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
vm , and the sequence A2 → A2 where A2 is the apartment containing D0 , X (n) and vm
(n)
(X (n) is different from C (n) and D0 for sufficiently large n). The idea is to apply Lemma 3.11
(n)
to these two sequences of apartments simultaneously. We do it for A1 → A1 . Denote by
(n)
(n)
(n)
(n)
wm+1 , . . . , w2m−1 the new vertices of A1 as in Figure 8. The sequence c1 → c1 6∈ A is such
16

d(n)

(n)

wm+1
(n)

(n)

vm+1

vm

(n)

vm−1

A(n)
(n)

D0 v (n) C (n)
0
(n)

w2m−1

X (n)

(n)

c1

Figure 8: Illustration of Claim 3.
(n)

that ϕn c1

(n)

→ ṽ0 and, after projecting on wm+1 → wm+1 (see Lemma 3.6), there also is a
(n)

sequence d(n) → d 6∈ A1 with d(n) adjacent to wm+1 . Moreover, by Claim 1 there exists η1 > 0
such that (C2 , C1 ) is η1 -correct. We can therefore apply Lemma 3.11 which provides η1′ > 0
(n)
satisfying the properties stated in this same lemma. In the same way with A2 → A2 , there
is η2′ > 0 with similar properties.
We now prove that ηX = min(η1′ , η2′ ) is adequate. Suppose that ϕk(n) X (k(n)) → X̃ for
some subsequence (ϕk(n) ) of (ϕn ) and some chamber X̃. If X̃ 6= C, then the sequence of
(k(n))

apartments ϕk(n) A1

converges to the apartment Ã1 containing C̃, X̃ and ṽm . Also, we
(n)

(k(n))

d(k(n))

have in this case ϕk(n)
→ w̃m+2 (the limit of (ϕk(n) wm+2 )) because ϕn c1 → ṽ0 . This
means that (ϕk(n) ) satisfies the three conditions (a), (b) and (c) of Lemma 3.11 for η1 and
thus ϕk(n) R(k(n)) → X̃ as soon as (R(n) ) is a sequence with R(n) ∈ Bv(n) (X (n) , η1′ ) for all
0

n ∈ N. On the other hand, if X̃ = C then X̃ 6= D0 and we can do the same trick with
(n)
A2 → A2 and η2′ . In either case, we have shown that ηX = min(η1′ , η2′ ) is adequate.
Now if X = C, the convergence ϕk(n) X (k(n)) → D̃0 cannot happen because (C, D0 ) is
(n)

correct. We can therefore in this case do the same reasoning with only A2 → A2 and take
(n)
ηX = η2′ . Similarly, for X = D0 we only consider A1 → A1 and take ηX = η1′ .

To complete the proof, we show that the situation described in Claim 3 is actually impossible. Indeed, by compactness of Cham(v0 ) we get
Cham(v0 ) =

r
[

Bv0 (Xj , ηXj )

j=1
(n)

for some X1 , . . . , Xr ∈ Cham(v0 ). Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that ϕn Xj → X̃j
for each j ∈ {1, . . . , r}. Now consider some S ∈ Cham(ṽ0 ) \ {X̃1 , . . . , X̃r } (which is nonempty since each panel is infinite). By a construction similar to the construction of X (n)
(n)
from X, we can build a sequence S (n) → S with S (n) ∈ Cham(ϕn v0 ) for all n ∈ N. Let
17

(n) ; we can assume that R(n) → R ∈ Cham(v ). There exists j ∈ {1, . . . , r} such
R(n) = ϕ−1
0
n S
(n)
that R ∈ Bv0 (Xj , ηXj ) and this means that R(n) ∈ Bv(n) (Xj , ηXj ) for sufficiently large n.
0

Hence, (ϕn R(n) ) should converge to X̃j , which is impossible as ϕn R(n) = S (n) → S 6= X̃j .
Proof of Corollary D. Define D0 , D1 , v0 and v1 as in Theorem C and take ε > 0 sufficiently
small so that
(A) B(C, ε) × B(C ′ , ε) ⊆ {(X, X ′ ) ∈ (Cham ∆)2 | X is opposite X ′ },
(B) ρ(C, Di ) ≥ 4ε for i ∈ {0, 1},
(C) there exists Ei ∈ Cham(vi ) such that ρ(C, Ei ) ≥ 3ε and ρ(Di , Ei ) ≥ 3ε for i ∈ {0, 1}.
It is obvious that there exists ε > 0 satisfying (B) and (C), and Proposition 2.1 tells us that we
can choose it so that it also satisfies (A). It is then immediate to see that Lε (C, C ′ ) is a closed
subset of Jε (C, C ′ , B(C, ε), B(C ′ , ε), E0 , E1 ), the latter being compact by Theorem C.
Proof of Corollary E. Consider two opposite chambers C and C ′ of ∆. The set Lε (C, C ′ ) is a
neighbourhood of the identity in Auttop(∆) and is compact for some ε > 0 by Corollary D.

4

Topological characterization of the Moufang property

In this last section, our ultimate goal is to prove Theorem A. The implications (i) ⇒ (ii) and
(ii) ⇒ (iii) are explained in the first two subsections while the most difficult part (iii) ⇒ (i)
is the subject of the rest of the section.

4.1

Convergence groups

If M is a topological space and G is a topological group acting continuously on M , then the
action of G on M is proper if for every compact set K ⊆ M , the set {g ∈ G | g(K) ∩ K 6= ∅}
is compact. When M is compact, we also say that the action of G on M is n-proper if the
componentwise action of G on the space
M (n) = {(x1 , . . . , xn } ∈ M n | xi 6= xj ∀i 6= j}
is proper, where M (n) is equipped with the induced topology from the product topology on
M n . We finally say that G acts as a convergence group on M if G acts 3-properly on M .
We will be particularly interested in subgroups of the homeomorphism group of a compact
metric space M that act as a convergence group on M .
Lemma 4.1. Let (M, d) be a compact metric space and G be a subgroup of Homeo(M )
(equipped with the compact-open topology) acting as a convergence group on M . Then G is
closed in Homeo(M ) and G is locally compact.
Proof. If M has less than 3 elements, then Homeo(M ) is finite and hence G is locally compact
and closed in Homeo(M ). Now suppose that |M | ≥ 3.
We first show that G is closed in Homeo(M ). Let gn → g be a sequence with gn ∈ G for
all n ∈ N and g ∈ Homeo(M ). We want to prove that g ∈ G. Take x1 , x2 , x3 three distinct
elements of M and consider ε > 0 such that d(g(xi ), g(xj )) > 2ε for each i 6= j. Define
K = {(x1 , x2 , x3 )} ∪ (B(g(x1 ), ε) × B(g(x2 ), ε) × B(g(x3 ), ε)) ⊆ M (3) .
18

This is clearly a compact subset of M (3) , and gn ∈ {h ∈ G | h(K) ∩ K 6= ∅} for sufficiently
large n. This set being compact by hypothesis, it is closed in G and g ∈ G.
We now prove that G is locally compact. Once again, take x1 , x2 , x3 three distinct elements
of M . Choose ε > 0 such that d(xi , xj ) > 3ε for each i 6= j and define
K = {(y1 , y2 , y3 ) ∈ M 3 | d(yi , yj ) ≥ ε ∀i 6= j} ⊆ M (3) .
This is a compact subset of M (3) and thus V := {h ∈ G | h(K) ∩ K 6= ∅} is compact. But V
contains the ball
B(id, ε) := {h ∈ G | d(h(x), x) < ε ∀x ∈ M }.
Indeed, if h ∈ B(id, ε), then (h(x1 ), h(x2 ), h(x3 )) ∈ h(K) ∩ K. Therefore, V is a compact
neighbourhood of the identity of G.
The notion of convergence group appears in the theory of trees.
Lemma 4.2. Let T be a locally finite tree. The automorphism group Aut(T ) of T with the
topology of pointwise convergence acts as a convergence group on the space of ends T∞ of T .
Proof. The action of Aut(T ) on the set of vertices of T (endowed with the discrete topology) is
proper, since T is locally finite. The result then follows from the fact that one can canonically
(3)
associate a vertex of T to each element of T∞ .
The reason why we are interested in convergence groups is the existence of the following
reciprocal result, due to Carette and Dreesen.
Theorem 4.3 (Carette–Dreesen). Let G be a σ-compact, locally compact, non-compact group
acting continuously and transitively as a convergence group on an infinite compact totally
disconnected space M . Then G acts continuously, properly and faithfully on some locally
finite tree T and the spaces M and T∞ are equivariantly homeomorphic.
Proof. This is a particular case of [CD14, Theorem D].

4.2

Group of projectivities

If π and π ′ are two opposite panels of a compact spherical building ∆, then the projection
projπ |π′ : Cham(π ′ ) → Cham(π) is a homeomorphism (see Corollary 2.3). A map of the form
[π0 , π1 , . . . , πn ] := projπn ◦ projπn−1 ◦ . . . ◦ projπ1 |π0 : Cham(π0 ) → Cham(πn )
where π0 , π1 , . . . , πn is a sequence of panels with πi opposite πi−1 for each i ∈ {1, . . . , n} is
called a projectivity from π0 to πn . The group of projectivities Π(π) associated to a
panel π is the group of all projectivities from π to π (seen as a subgroup of Homeo(Cham(π)),
so that two projectivities acting in the same way on Cham(π) are considered equal).
Now let X be a locally finite thick affine building of rank at least 3 and of irreducible
type. It is well known (see [GKVMW12, Proposition 6.4]) that the spherical building X∞ at
infinity of X can be given a structure of totally disconnected compact building. Also, one
can construct for each panel π of X∞ a locally finite thick tree T (π), often called panel-tree,
whose space of ends T∞ (π) (we should actually write T (π)∞ ) is in bijective correspondence
with Cham(π) (see [Ron89, Lemma 10.4] or [Wei09, Proposition 11.22]). This bijection ψ :
T∞ (π) → Cham(π) is a homeomorphism if we equip T∞ (π) with the usual topology. There
also is a natural action of the group of projectivities Π(π) on T (π) and ψ is equivariant under
Π(π). These remarks are summarized in the following proposition.
19

Proposition 4.4. Let X be a locally finite thick irreducible affine building of rank at least 3.
For each panel π of X∞ , there exist a locally finite thick tree T (π) such that the group of
projectivities Π(π) acts on T (π) and a homeomorphism ψ : T∞ (π) → Cham(π) equivariant
under Π(π).
Proof. See the results mentioned in the previous discussion.
We can now prove the implication (i) ⇒ (ii) in Theorem A.
Proposition 4.5. Let X be a locally finite thick irreducible affine building of rank at least 3.
For each panel π of X∞ , the closure of the group of projectivities Π(π) in Homeo(Cham(π))
acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
Proof. In view of Proposition 4.4, given a panel π of X∞ there is a tree T (π) such that Π(π)
acts on T (π) and the spaces T∞ (π) and Cham(π) are equivariantly homeomorphic. We can
therefore see Π(π) as a subgroup of Aut(T (π)), and the closure Π(π) of Π(π) in Homeo(T∞ (π))
remains in Aut(T (π)) since Aut(T (π)) is closed in Homeo(T∞ (π)). Lemma 4.2 then states
that Aut(T (π)) acts as a convergence group on T∞ (π). Since the restriction to a closed
subgroup of an action as a convergence group is itself an action as a convergence group, this
is also the case of Π(π). Recalling that T∞ (π) and Cham(π) are equivariantly homeomorphic,
we see that Π(π) acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
Corollary 4.6 (Theorem A, (i) ⇒ (ii)). Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3. If ∆ is Moufang, then for each panel π of ∆ the closure in
Homeo(Cham(π)) of the group of projectivities Π(π) acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
Proof. By [GKVMW12, Theorem 1.1], ∆ is the building at infinity of some locally finite
thick irreducible affine building X of rank 3, i.e. ∆ ∼
= X∞ . The result then follows from
Proposition 4.5.
To prove the implication (ii) ⇒ (iii) in Theorem A, we need some basic observations about
groups acting on a locally finite thick tree T so that the induced action on T∞ is 2-transitive.
We use a result of Tits to prove the following lemma, but the reader should be aware that it
can also be shown without using such a deep result.
Lemma 4.7. Let T be a locally finite thick tree and let G ≤ Aut(T ). If G acts 2-transitively
on T∞ , then there exists a hyperbolic element in G, i.e. some g ∈ G that stabilizes a bi-infinite
geodesic ℓ of T and acts non-trivially on ℓ by translation.
Proof. Assume for a contradiction that G does not contain any hyperbolic element. Then
by [Tit70, Proposition 3.4], G is contained in the stabilizer of a vertex, an edge or an end of
T . However, none of these three situations is possible since G acts 2-transitively on T∞ .
Lemma 4.8. Let T be a locally finite thick tree and let G ≤ Aut(T ). Consider an infinite
ray r = (vi )i≥1 in T and let v0 and v0′ be two vertices of T adjacent to v1 and different from
v2 . If G acts 2-transitively on T∞ , then there exists g ∈ G such that g(r) = r and g(v0 ) = v0′ .
Proof. Consider a bi-infinite geodesic ℓ of T containing r and v0 . By Lemma 4.7, there exists
a hyperbolic element in G, and by 2-transitivity of G there even is an element t ∈ G stabilizing
ℓ and acting on it non-trivially by translation. Replacing t by t−1 if necessary, we can assume
that t(v0 ) = vm for some m > 0. Now let ℓ′ be a bi-infinite geodesic containing r and v0′ . By
2-transitivity of G, we can conjugate t by an adequate element of G to find t′ ∈ G stabilizing
ℓ′ and such that t′ (v0′ ) = vm . Then t′−1 t ∈ G fixes r and sends v0 on v0′ .
20

The implication (ii) ⇒ (iii) in Theorem A can now be shown.
Proposition 4.9 (Theorem A, (ii) ⇒ (iii)). Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3 and let π be a panel of ∆. Suppose that the closure of the group
of projectivities Π(π) in Homeo(Cham(π)) acts as a convergence group on Cham(π). Then
for all G ≤ Auttop(∆), the closure of the natural image of StabG (π) in Homeo(Cham(π))
acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
Proof. By [Kna88, Lemma 1.2], the action of Π(π) on Cham(π) is 2-transitive. Now suppose
that the closure Π(π) of Π(π) in Homeo(Cham(π)) acts as a convergence group on Cham(π).
Claim 1. The group Π(π) acts on a locally finite thick tree T (π) such that T∞ (π) and
Cham(π) are equivariantly homeomorphic.
Proof of the claim: We want to apply Theorem 4.3 and thus check its hypotheses. The
group Π(π) is locally compact (Lemma 4.1), σ-compact (it is second-countable by [Are46,
Theorem 5] and a locally compact second-countable space is always σ-compact), Cham(π) is
infinite (Lemma 2.8), compact and totally disconnected, and the action of Π(π) on Cham(π)
is continuous and transitive (even 2-transitive). It only remains to show that Π(π) is noncompact. By contradiction, suppose that Π(π) is relatively compact in Homeo(Cham(π)).
It is therefore also relatively compact in C(Cham(π), Cham(π)) and, by the Arzela-Ascoli
theorem, Π(π) is equicontinuous on Cham(π). This is a contradiction with the fact that the
action of Π(π) on Cham(π) is 2-transitive. By Theorem 4.3, we therefore have a locally finite
tree T (π) as wanted. This tree may be not thick, but we can actually assume it is. Indeed, the
vertices of degree 1 can clearly be deleted, as well as the vertices of degree 2 by joining their
two neighbours. Note that there is no infinite ray in T (π) only containing vertices of degree 2
(which would prevent the deletion of these vertices) since this would imply the existence of
an isolated chamber in Cham(π), which is impossible in view of Lemma 2.8.

The next claim shows that the structure of T (π) is encoded in the group structure of Π(π).
For any vertex v of T (π), we write Sv for the stabilizer of v in Π(π).
Claim 2. The groups Sv are pairwise distinct and are exactly the maximal compact subgroups
K of Π(π) such that [K : (K ∩ H)] ≥ 3 for any other maximal compact subgroup H of Π(π).
Moreover, two distinct vertices v and v ′ of T (π) are adjacent if and only if [Sv : (Sv ∩ Sv′ )] ≤
[Sv : (Sv ∩ Sw )] for any vertex w different from v.
Proof of the claim: In view of Lemma 4.8, the groups Sv are pairwise distinct. Moreover, they
are maximal compact subgroups of Π(π) and the only other maximal compact subgroups are
the stabilizers of those edges e for which there is an element of Π(π) inverting e (see [FTN91,
Theorem 5.2]). If Se denotes the stabilizer in Π(π) of such an edge e = [v1 , v2 ], then [Se :
(Se ∩ Sv1 )] = 2. On the other hand, if v is a vertex of T (π) then by Lemma 4.8 and since T (π)
is thick we have [Sv : (Sv ∩ Sv′ )] ≥ 3 for v ′ a vertex different from v and [Sv : (Sv ∩ Se )] ≥ 3
for e an edge of T (π). The first part of the claim is therefore proven.
Now fix a vertex v of T . By Lemma 4.8, for any other vertex w the equality
[Sv : (Sv ∩ Sw )] = deg(v) ·

n−1
Y

(deg(vi ) − 1)

i=1

holds, where v, v1 , . . . , vn−1 , w is the path in T (π) joining v and w (this formula can be
obtained by induction on n). The second part of the claim follows from this observation. 
21

Claim 3. The stabilizer StabAuttop(∆) (π) of π in Auttop(∆) acts on T (π) and the homeomorphism between T∞ (π) and Cham(π) is equivariant under StabAuttop(∆) (π).
Proof of the claim: First remark that StabAuttop(∆) (π) normalizes Π(π) in Homeo(Cham(π)).
Indeed, if [π, π1 , . . . , πn−1 , π] is a projectivity and g ∈ StabAuttop(∆) (π), one can check that
g ◦ [π, π1 , . . . , πn−1 , π] ◦ g−1 = [π, g(π1 ), . . . , g(πn−1 ), π].
In view of Claim 2, the action by conjugation of StabAuttop(∆) (π) on Π(π) induces an action of
StabAuttop(∆) (π) on T (π). It remains to show that the homeomorphism ψ : T∞ (π) → Cham(π)
given by Claim 1 is equivariant under StabAuttop(∆) (π). Consider g ∈ StabAuttop(∆) (π), C ∈
Cham(π) and (vi )i≥1 a ray in T (π) representing the end corresponding to C. We want to
show that the ray (g(vi ))i≥1 represents the end corresponding to g(C). To do so, remark that
∞ \
∞
[

Svi

k=1 i=k

fixes C but does not fix any chamber different from C (this follows from Lemma 4.8). Now
we also have
!
∞ \
∞
∞ \
∞
[
[
−1
g
Svi g =
Sg(vi ) =: R
k=1 i=k

k=1 i=k

by definition of the action of StabAuttop(∆) (π) on T (π). But R fixes g(C) and also fixes the
chamber corresponding to the end represented by the ray (g(vi ))i≥1 . Since R can only fix one
chamber, the claim stands proven.

In view of Claim 3 and since Aut(T (π)) is closed in Homeo(T∞ (π)), for any G ≤ Auttop(∆)
the closure of the image of StabG (π) in Homeo(Cham(π)) can be seen as a (closed) subgroup
of Aut(T (π)). The conclusion thus follows from Lemma 4.2, as the restriction to a closed
subgroup of an action as a convergence group is itself an action as a convergence group.

4.3

Conventions for the rest of the section

The rest of this section is dedicated to the proof of the implication (iii) ⇒ (i) in Theorem A.
Unless otherwise stated, we will from now on study an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon ∆ with m ≥ 3. We will also assume that we are in presence of a strongly
transitive closed subgroup G of Auttop(∆) such that ∆ satisfies the property CG G :
Definition 4.10. Let ∆ be a compact polygon and let G be a subgroup of Auttop(∆). We
will say that ∆ has the property CG G if for each vertex (i.e. panel) v of ∆, the closure of
the image of StabG (v) in Homeo(Cham(v)) acts as a convergence group on Cham(v).
Our ultimate goal is to prove that, under these conditions, ∆ has the Moufang property.
We can already directly use Theorem 4.3 to construct a tree associated to each vertex of ∆.
Proposition 4.11. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3
and let G be a strongly transitive subgroup of Auttop(∆) satisfying property CG G . Then for
each vertex v of ∆ there exists a locally finite thick tree T (v) such that StabG (v) acts on T (v)
and the spaces T∞ (v) and Cham(v) are equivariantly homeomorphic.

22

Proof. The property CG G tells us that the group i(StabG (v)) where i is the natural map from
StabG (v) to Homeo(Cham(v)) acts as a convergence group on Cham(v). All the hypotheses
of Theorem 4.3 are then satisfied. Indeed, i(StabG (v)) is locally compact (Lemma 4.1) and
σ-compact (it is second-countable by [Are46, Theorem 5] and a locally compact secondcountable space is always σ-compact), Cham(v) is infinite (Lemma 2.8), compact and totally
disconnected, and the action of i(StabG (v)) on Cham(v) is continuous and transitive (even
2-transitive, see Lemma 2.9). It only remains to show that i(StabG (v)) is non-compact.
Suppose for a contradiction that i(StabG (v)) is relatively compact in Homeo(Cham(v)). It is
therefore also relatively compact in C(Cham(v), Cham(v)) and, by the Arzela-Ascoli theorem,
i(StabG (v)) is equicontinuous on Cham(v). This is a contradiction with the fact that the
action of i(StabG (v)) on Cham(v) is 2-transitive.
Hence, there is a locally finite tree T (v) such that i(StabG (v)) acts on T (v) and so that
T∞ (v) and Cham(v) are equivariantly homeomorphic. The group StabG (v) obviously acts on
T (v) too, and the homeomorphism remains equivariant under StabG (v). We can also assume
that T (v) is thick since the vertices of degree ≤ 2 can be deleted (for those of degree 2, the two
neighbours have to be joined by an edge). Note that there is no infinite ray only containing
vertices of degree 2 since it would contradict Lemma 2.8.

4.4

Automorphisms fixing an apartment

In this subsection, we focus on the fixator H = FixG (A) of an apartment A of ∆ (where
∆ and G are as described in Subsection 4.3). By Proposition 4.11, for each vertex v of A
there exists a tree T (v) whose space of ends corresponds to Cham(v). The group H acts
simultaneously on all these trees. Moreover, for each vertex v of A, H fixes the two chambers
of A having vertex v, which means that it fixes the two corresponding ends of T (v). In this
tree, H thus stabilizes the bi-infinite geodesic between these two ends, which we denote by
ℓv . We therefore have for each vertex v of A an induced action of H on ℓv .
Our goal is now to show that for every vertex v of A, there exists some element of H fixing
ℓv and ℓv′ pointwise where v ′ is the vertex of A opposite v but acting non-trivially on every
other ℓw . We will actively use this result in the last subsection to prove that ∆ is Moufang.
As a first step in this direction, we show that for each vertex v of A, there is an element
of H that acts non-trivially on ℓv .
Lemma 4.12. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3 and
let G be a strongly transitive subgroup of Auttop(∆) satisfying property CG G . Let A be an
apartment of ∆, v be a vertex of A and H = FixG (A). There is an element of H that acts
non-trivially on ℓv .
Proof. Let v ′ be the vertex of A opposite v and let L = StabG (v, v ′ ). Since G is strongly transitive, the natural image L̃ of L in Aut(T (v)) acts 2-transitively on T∞ (v) (see Lemma 2.9).
By Lemma 4.7, there is a hyperbolic element in L̃ and hence an element that stabilizes ℓv but
does not fix it pointwise. It corresponds to an element of H that does not fix ℓv pointwise.
To go further in the discussion, we denote by v0 , . . . , v2m−1 the vertices of A in the natural
order and distinguish three types of possible actions of an element t ∈ H around a vertex vi :
(a) If t fixes ℓvi pointwise, we will say that t acts trivially around vi .
(b) If t translates ℓvi toward the end representing the chamber of A having vertex vi+1 , we
will say that t acts positively around vi .
23

v4

v3

v5

v2
v0

v1

Figure 9: Representation of an action.
(c) If t translates ℓvi toward the end representing the chamber of A having vertex vi−1 , we
will say that t acts negatively around vi .
An example of such an action of an element t ∈ H on A is shown in Figure 9. An arrow in
the anticlockwise direction means that the action is positive while an arrow in the clockwise
direction means that it is negative. In this figure, the action is positive around v0 , v1 and v2
and negative around v3 , v4 and v5 .
The three types of action can easily be spotted by observing how tn acts on ∆ when n
goes to infinity. Indeed, denoting by C+ the chamber having vertices vi and vi+1 , by C− the
chamber having vertices vi and vi−1 , and by C any chamber having vertex vi different from
C+ and C− , we get the following characterizations.
(a) t acts trivially around vi ⇔ tn (C) does not accumulate at C+ nor at C− .
(b) t acts positively around vi ⇔ tn (C) → C+ .
(c) t acts negatively around vi ⇔ tn (C) → C− .
These characterizations already allow us to prove the following lemma giving a relationship
between the action of an element t around vi and its action around vi+m , the opposite vertex
in A. The action represented in Figure 9 is coherent with this information.
Lemma 4.13. The action of an element t ∈ H around a vertex vi of A is opposite to its
action around vi+m : t either acts trivially around the two vertices, or it acts positively around
one and negatively around the other.
Proof. Let C 6∈ A be a chamber having vertex vi . Then projvi+m (C) is a chamber having
vertex vi+m and tn (projvi+m (C)) = projvi+m (tn (C)). By Proposition 2.2, the action of t
around vi is opposite to its action around vi+m .
We can now prove that H always contains some particular elements.
Proposition 4.14. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3
and let G be a strongly transitive subgroup of Auttop(∆) satisfying property CG G . Let A be
an apartment of ∆, v0 , . . . , v2m−1 be the vertices of A and H = FixG (A). For each i ∈
{0, . . . , 2m − 1}, there is an element of H that acts positively around all vertices of A closer
to vi than to vi+1 and negatively around all vertices of A closer to vi+1 than to vi (indices
being taken modulo 2m).
Proof. We divide the proof into three claims.
24

Claim 1. There exists an element of H that acts positively around vs and negatively around
vs+1 for some s ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}.
Proof of the claim: In view of Lemma 4.12, there is an element of H acting positively around
at least one vertex of A. We consider t ∈ H an element acting positively around a maximal
number of consecutive vertices of A, and denote by vr , vr+1 , . . . , vs these vertices. Note that t
does not act positively around all vertices of A in view of Lemma 4.13. Hence, t acts negatively
or trivially around vs+1 . Suppose that t acts trivially around vs+1 . By Lemma 4.12, there is
t′ ∈ H acting non-trivially around vs+1 . Replacing t′ by t′−1 if necessary, we can assume that t′
acts positively around vs+1 . Then for sufficiently large n ∈ N, tn t′ ∈ H acts positively around
vr , . . . , vs , vs+1 which contradicts the maximality of t. This means that t acts negatively
around vs+1 , and the claim stands proven.

Claim 2. For each i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}, there exists an element of H that acts positively
around vi and negatively around vi+1 .
Proof of the claim: By Claim 1, there is t ∈ H acting positively around vs and negatively
around vs+1 for some s ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}. Now take i ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}. Since G is strongly
transitive, there is an element g ∈ H sending the chamber with vertices vs and vs+1 to the
chamber having vertices vi and vi+1 . It can be directly checked that gtg −1 ∈ H acts positively
around vi and negatively around vi+1 .

Claim 3. Let s ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1} and let t ∈ H be an element acting positively around vs
and negatively around vs+1 . Then t acts positively around all vertices of A closer to vs than
to vs+1 and negatively around all vertices of A closer to vs+1 than to vs .
Proof of the claim: By Lemma 4.13, t acts negatively around vs+m and positively around
vs+m+1 (see Figure 10). We now want to show that t acts negatively around each vertex
between vs+1 and vs+m and positively around all other vertices. We therefore consider some
vertex vi with s + 1 < i < s + m and show that the action around vi is negative (and it
a
D
vs+m+1 vs+m

A
b
C′

Ci
vi+m

C

vi

Ci−1

Ci+m

vs

vs+1

D′
a′
Figure 10: Illustration of Claim 3.
25

will follow that the action around vi+m is positive). Denoting by Cj the chamber having
vertices vj and vj+1 for j ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1}, it suffices to find some chamber C 6∈ A having
vertex vi and such that tn (C) → Ci−1 . To get one, consider a chamber D 6∈ A having vertex
vs+m+1 and a chamber D ′ 6∈ A having vertex vs . Let also a (resp. a′ ) be the vertex of
D (resp. D ′ ) different from vs+m+1 (resp. vs ). The vertices a and a′ are almost opposite
while tn (a) → vs+m+2 and tn (a′ ) → vs+1 with vs+m+2 and vs+1 almost opposite. Hence,
tn ([a, a′ ]) → [vs+m+2 , vs+1 ] (Lemma 2.6). Now consider b the first vertex of [a, a′ ] opposite
vi and C ′ the chamber just after b in this new gallery from vs+m+1 to vs (see Figure 10).
Clearly tn (b) → vi+m and tn (C ′ ) → Ci+m . Define finally C = projvi (C ′ ) to get tn (C) → Ci−1
as wanted (see Proposition 2.2). Note that C 6= Ci−1 since the vertex of C ′ different from b
is opposite vi−1 .

The proposition follows from Claim 2 and Claim 3.
The desired result can finally be shown.
Proposition 4.15. Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥
3 and let G be a strongly transitive subgroup of Auttop(∆) satisfying property CG G . Let
A be an apartment of ∆, v0 , . . . , v2m−1 be the vertices of A and H = FixG (A). For each
i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1}, there is an element of H that acts trivially around vi and vi+m but
non-trivially around all other vertices of A.
Proof. Fix i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1}. By Proposition 4.14, there exists t1 ∈ H acting positively
around all vertices of A closer to vi−1 than to vi and negatively around all vertices of A closer
to vi than to vi−1 . There also exists t2 ∈ H acting positively around all vertices of A closer
to vi than to vi+1 and negatively around all vertices of A closer to vi+1 than to vi . Denote
by T1 ∈ N∗ (resp. T2 ∈ N∗ ) the length of the translation of ℓvi induced by t1 (resp. t2 ). Now
consider the element t = tT1 2 tT2 1 ∈ H. Clearly, t acts trivially around vi (and hence around
vi+m ) and non-trivially around all other vertices of A.

4.5

Proof of the characterization of the Moufang property

The proof of implication (iii) ⇒ (i) in Theorem A will use the theory of contraction groups.
If G is a topological group and t ∈ G, the contraction group associated to t is the subgroup
of G defined by
ConG (t) = {g ∈ G | tn gt−n → e}
where e is the identity element of G. The parabolic subgroup associated to t is the subgroup
of G defined by
ParG (t) = {g ∈ G | {tn gt−n }n∈N is relatively compact in G}.
The following lemma is immediate.
Lemma 4.16. Let f : G → H be a continuous homomorphism of topological groups and let
t ∈ G. We have the following inclusions.
f (ConG (t)) ⊆ ConH (f (t))

and

f (ParG (t)) ⊆ ParH (f (t))

Proof. Using the continuity of f , we directly get f (ConG (t)) ⊆ ConH (f (t)). Similarly, the
inclusion f (ParG (t)) ⊆ ParH (f (t)) follows from the fact that a continuous image of a compact
set is compact.
26

In the case where G is the automorphism group of a tree, we can compute the contraction
groups and the parabolic subgroups associated to some particular elements.
Lemma 4.17. Let T be a locally finite tree and let t be an element of Aut(T ) stabilizing a
bi-infinite geodesic (a, b) in T (where a, b ∈ T∞ ).
(i) If t fixes (a, b) pointwise, then ConAut(T ) (t) = {e}.
(ii) If t translates (a, b) toward b, then ParAut(T ) (t) = FixAut(T ) (a).
Proof. Point (i) directly comes from the fact that {tn }n∈N is relatively compact in Aut(T )
when t fixes (a, b) pointwise. The proof of (ii) is given in [CDM13, Lemma 2.3].
Finally, the following theorem is due to Baumgartner and Willis.
Theorem 4.18 (Baumgartner–Willis). Let G be a totally disconnected locally compact group
and let t ∈ G. Then
ParG (t) = ConG (t) · (ParG (t) ∩ ParG (t−1 )).
Proof. See [BW04, Corollary 3.17].
We are now able to prove the implication (iii) ⇒ (i) in Theorem A.
Theorem 4.19 (Theorem A, (iii) ⇒ (i)). Let ∆ be an infinite thick compact totally disconnected m-gon with m ≥ 3 and let G be a closed strongly transitive subgroup of Auttop(∆)
satisfying property CG G . Then ∆ is Moufang.
Proof. Fix some root α of ∆ and denote by v0 , v1 , . . . , vm its vertices in the natural order.
We want to prove that the root group
Uα = {g ∈ Aut(∆) | g fixes every chamber having a panel in α \ ∂α}
acts transitively on the set of apartments containing α. This is equivalent to saying that Uα
acts transitively on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} where C is the chamber having vertices v0 and v1 . First
remark that V0 := FixG (α) acts transitively on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} since G is strongly transitive
(see Lemma 2.9). We will therefore proceed by induction, by defining successively
V1 = Ker(V0 y Cham(v1 )),
V2 = Ker(V1
..
.

y Cham(v2 )),
..
.

Vm−1 = Ker(Vm−2 y Cham(vm−1 )).
In this way, V1 is the fixator in G of α and every chamber having vertex v1 , V2 is the fixator
in G of α and every chamber having vertex v1 or v2 , and so on until Vm−1 which is exactly
Uα ∩ G. The action of V0 on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} is transitive and we would like to prove that
the action of Vm−1 on this set remains transitive. It thus suffices to show that if the action
of Vi is transitive, then the action of Vi+1 is transitive too.
Suppose that the action of Vi on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} is transitive for some i ∈ {0, . . . , m − 2}.
Consider A any apartment containing α and H = FixG (A). By Proposition 4.15, there
exists t ∈ H fixing ℓvi+1 pointwise but not ℓvj for j ∈ {0, . . . , i}. Let a be the end of T (v0 )
27

corresponding to the chamber C and b be the end of T (v0 ) corresponding to the other chamber
of A having vertex v0 . Replacing t by t−1 if necessary, we can assume that t acts negatively
around v0 , i.e. that it translates ℓv0 = (a, b) toward b. Now consider Wi the semidirect
product in G of Vi and hti (this is well defined as H normalizes Vi ). To prove that the action
of Vi+1 on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} remains transitive, we show that ConWi (t) is included in Vi+1 and
that its action on the set remains transitive.
Claim 1. The equality ParWi (t) = Wi holds.
Proof of the claim: We prove the claim by contradiction. Suppose that there is some element g ∈ Wi such that {tn gt−n }n≥0 is not relatively compact in Wi . Since Wi is closed
in Auttop(∆), it is not relatively compact in Auttop(∆) either. By Proposition 3.3 with
S = {tn gt−n }n≥0 , there exist two sequences in Vert ∆ which are collapsed by a subsequence
of (tn gt−n ) or (tn g−1 t−n ). Replacing g by g −1 if necessary, we can assume that it is a subsequence of (tn gt−n ). We would then like to use Proposition 3.7 with the sequence of apartments
A → A. Let vm+1 , . . . , v2m−1 be the vertices of A outside α (in the natural order) and D
the chamber having vertices v0 and v2m−1 . Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that
tn gt−n D → D̃ for some chamber D̃. If D̃ 6= C, then tn gt−n A → Ã where Ã is the unique
apartment containing α and D̃ and Proposition 3.7 gives two sequences centered at vk → vk
for some k ∈ {0, . . . , 2m − 1} and collapsed by a subsequence of (tn gt−n ). By Lemma 3.6,
we can assume that k ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1}. On the other hand, if D̃ = C, then v1 → v1 and
v2m−1 → v2m−1 are sequences centered at v0 → v0 and collapsed by (tn gt−n ).
In either case, there are two sequences centered at vk → vk for some k ∈ {0, . . . , m − 1}
and collapsed by a subsequence of (tn gt−n ). We introduce the notation (for j ∈ {0, . . . , m})
ϕj : Wi → Aut(T (vj ))
for the natural map from Wi ⊆ StabAuttop(∆) (vj ) to Aut(T (vj )). For each j ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1},
since tn gt−n translates ℓvj exactly as g does for all n ∈ N, the set {ϕj (tn gt−n )}n≥0 is relatively
compact in Aut(T (vj )). It is also relatively compact in Homeo(T∞ (vj )) and hence equicontinuous on T∞ (vj ) by the Arzela-Ascoli theorem. It is therefore impossible to have two sequences
centered at vj → vj and collapsed by a subsequence of (tn gt−n ) for j ∈ {1, . . . , m − 1}. But
it is not possible either to have them centered at v0 → v0 . Indeed, the existence of two such
sequences would imply that ϕ0 (g) 6∈ ParAut(T (v0 )) (ϕ0 (t)) = FixAut(T (v0 )) (a) (see Lemma 4.17
(ii)) which is impossible since g ∈ Wi fixes a. The claim is therefore proven.

Claim 2. ConWi (t) acts transitively on Cham(v0 ) \ {C}.
Proof of the claim: Applying Theorem 4.18 to t ∈ Wi (note that Wi is locally compact as a
closed subgroup of Auttop(∆) which is locally compact (Corollary E) and totally disconnected
since it acts continuously and faithfully on the totally disconnected space Cham ∆), we get
ParWi (t) = ConWi (t) · (ParWi (t) ∩ ParWi (t−1 )).
Now by Lemma 4.16,
ϕ0 (ParWi (t)) ⊆ ϕ0 (ConWi (t)) · (ParAut(T (v0 )) (ϕ0 (t)) ∩ ParAut(T (v0 )) (ϕ0 (t−1 ))).
Claim 1 together with Lemma 4.17 (ii) finally gives
ϕ0 (Wi ) ⊆ ϕ0 (ConWi (t)) · FixAut(T (v0 )) (a, b).
28

But Vi acts transitively on Cham(v0 ) \ {C} and so does Wi , which means that ϕ0 (Wi )(b) =
T∞ (v0 ) \ {a}. Hence,
T∞ (v0 ) \ {a} = ϕ0 (Wi )(b) ⊆ ϕ0 (ConWi (t))(b)
and ConWi (t) also acts transitively on Cham(v0 ) \ {C}.



Claim 3. The inclusion ConWi (t) ⊆ Vi+1 holds.
Proof of the claim: It is not even clear for the moment that ConWi (t) is included in Vi . If
i = 0, then t ∈ H ⊆ V0 and W0 = V0 so this is true. If i > 0, then t 6∈ Vi (that is actually
why we introduced the semidirect product Wi ) but we can prove that ConWi (t) ⊆ Vi . Indeed,
suppose by contradiction that there is an element of ConWi (t) that is not in Vi , i.e. of the
form xtk with x ∈ Vi and k ∈ Z0 . This means that tn xtk−n → e in Wi when n goes to infinity.
But t does not fix ℓvi pointwise while x does as it acts trivially on Cham(vi ). Hence, tn xtk−n
does not fix ℓvi pointwise for each n ∈ N and tn xtk−n 6→ e. This proves ConWi (t) ⊆ Vi .
Finally, since
ϕi+1 (ConWi (t)) ⊆ ConAut(T (vi+1 )) (ϕi+1 (t)) = {e}
by Lemma 4.17 (i), we get ConWi (t) ⊆ Vi+1 .



As explained above, the conclusion follows from Claim 2 and Claim 3.
We finally give the proof of Corollary B.
Proof of Corollary B. Let X be a locally finite thick affine building of rank 3 and of irreducible
type which is strongly transitive. It is clear that Aut(X) is a closed subgroup of Auttop(X∞ )
and, by Proposition 4.5 and Proposition 4.9, X∞ has the property CG Aut(X) . Moreover,
Aut(X) is strongly transitive on X and hence on X∞ . By Theorem 4.19, X∞ is Moufang.
In other words, X is a Bruhat-Tits building. Those buildings have been classified by Bruhat
and Tits; this classification is the subject of an important part of the book [Wei09].

References
[Are46] Richard F. Arens, A topology for spaces of transformations, Ann. of Math. (2) 47 (1946), no. 3,
480–495.
[BW04] Udo Baumgartner and George A. Willis, Contraction groups and scales of automorphisms of
totally disconnected locally compact groups, Israel J. Math. 142 (2004), 221–248.
[BVM94] Francis Buekenhout and Hendrik Van Maldeghem, Finite distance-transitive generalized polygons, Geom. Dedicata 52 (1994), no. 1, 41–51.
[BS87a] Keith Burns and Ralf Spatzier, On topological Tits building and their classification, Publ. Math.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 65 (1987), 5–34.
[BS87b] Keith Burns and Ralf Spatzier, Manifolds of nonpositive curvature and their buildings, Publ.
Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 65 (1987), 35–59.
[CDM13] Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Tom De Medts, Trees, contraction groups, and Moufang sets,
Duke Math. J 162 (2013), no. 13, 2413–2449.
[CM15] Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Nicolas Monod, An indiscrete Bieberbach theorem: from amenable
CAT(0) groups to Tits buildings, J. Éc. polytech. Math. 2 (2015), 333–383.
[CD14] Mathieu Carette and Denis Dreesen, Locally compact convergence groups and n-transitive actions, Math. Z. 278 (2014), no. 3–4, 795-827.

29

[FTN91] Alessandro Figà-Talamanca and Claudio Nebbia, Harmonic analysis and representation theory
for groups acting on homogeneous trees, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 162, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
[Gru86] Theo Grundhöfer, Automorphism groups of compact projective planes, Geom. Dedicata 21
(1986), no. 3, 291–298.
[GKK95] Theo Grundhöfer, Norbert Knarr, and Linus Kramer, Flag-homogeneous compact connected polygons, Geom. Dedicata 55 (1995), no. 1, 95–114.
[GKK00] Theo Grundhöfer, Norbert Knarr, and Linus Kramer, Flag-homogeneous compact connected polygons II, Geom. Dedicata 83 (2000), no. 1–3, 1–29.
[GKVMW12] Theo Grundhöfer, Linus Kramer, Hendrik Van Maldeghem, and Richard M. Weiss, Compact
totally disconnected Moufang buildings, Tohoku Math. J. (2) 64 (2012), no. 3, 333–360.
[Kna88] Norbert Knarr, Projectivities of generalized polygons, Ars Combin. 25 (1988), no. B, 265–275.
[Löw81] Rainer Löwen, Projectivities and the geometric structure of topological planes, Geometry - von
Staudt’s point of view, 1981, pp. 339–372.
[Mun00] James R. Munkres, Topology, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 2000.
[Ron89] Mark Ronan, Lectures on buildings, Perspectives in Mathematics, vol. 7, Academic Press, Inc.,
Boston, 1989.
[SBG+ 95] Helmut Salzmann, Dieter Betten, Theo Grundöfer, Hermann Hähl, Rainer Löwen, and Markus
Stroppel, Compact projective planes: with an introduction to octonion geometry, de Gruyter Exp.
Math., vol. 21, Walter de Gruyter & Co., New York, 1995.
[Tit70] Jacques Tits, Sur le groupe des automorphismes d’un arbre, Essays on topology and related
topics (Mémoires dédiés à Georges de Rham), 1970, pp. 188–211 (French).
[Tit74] Jacques Tits, Buildings of spherical type and finite BN-pairs, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 386,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974.
[VMVS98] Hendrik Van Maldeghem and Kristel Van Steen, Characterizations by automorphism groups of
some rank 3 buildings: I. Some properties of half strongly-transitive triangle buildings, Geom.
Dedicata 73 (1998), no. 2, 119–142.
[Wei09] Richard M. Weiss, The structure of affine buildings, Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 168, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 2009.

30

