Intrinsic reflections in Coxeter systems
Bernhard Mühlherr1

Koji Nuida23

1

arXiv:1607.00757v1 [math.GR] 4 Jul 2016

2

Mathematisches Institut, JLU Giessen
Information Technology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
3
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) PRESTO Researcher

Abstract
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let s ∈ S. We call s a right-angled
generator of (W, S) if st = ts or st has infinite order for each t ∈ S. We call
s an intrinsic reflection of W if s ∈ RW for all Coxeter generating sets R of
W . We give necessary and sufficient conditions for a right-angled generator
s ∈ S of (W, S) to be an intrinsic reflection of W .

1

Introduction

Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. We call an element x ∈ W an intrinsic reflection
of W if x ∈ RW := {w −1 rw | r ∈ R, w ∈ W } for all Coxeter generating sets R of
W . This paper is a contribution to the following problem.
Problem: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and s ∈ S. Give necessary and sufficient condition for s to be an intrinsic reflection of W in terms of the diagram of
(W, S).
This problem arises naturally in the context of the isomorphism problem for Coxeter groups which is still open at present. Substantial progress has been made
by Caprace and Przytycki in [3] in this area. Combined with their result, the
complete solution to the problem above would provide a characterization of all
strongly rigid Coxeter systems in terms of their diagrams. This will be discussed
in more detail in the paragraph on strong rigidity below.
In [9] the finite continuation of a finite order element in a finitely generated Coxeter
group was introduced. The notion of an intrinsic reflection was not defined in that
paper. However, its main purpose was to give a criterion which ensures that a
generator s ∈ S of a Coxeter system (W, S) is an intrinsic reflection of W . Indeed,
1

Part b) of the Main result of [9] asserts that s ∈ S is an intrinsic reflection of W
if its finite continuation coincides with the subgroup of order 2 generated by s. In
a forthcoming paper we intend to give a complete solution of the problem above
and it is indeed the case that the criterion given in [9] plays a central role in our
arguments. However, it turns out that the information provided by this criterion
is rather limited if the generator s ∈ S of the Coxeter system (W, S) is right-angled
by which we mean that the order of st is in {1, 2, ∞} for all t ∈ S. The purpose
of this paper is to solve the above problem for right-angled generators.
There are several reasons for treating this special case in a separate paper:
As already pointed out above, the general results about the finite continuation
do not provide any particularly deep insights for right-angled generators. In fact,
the corresponding information can be deduced more efficiently by direct ad-hoc
arguments. Thus, we do not make use of the finite continuation here. This has
the advantage that we do not have to assume that our Coxeter systems have finite
ranks. Another reason for treating right-angled generators separately is the fact
that there are specific tools which are only needed in this special case. Indeed, the
case of right-angled generators is the only one where the blowing down procedure
for Coxeter generating sets comes into play. The latter has been introduced in
[12] and some of our intermediate results should be compared with those in [12].
However, our treatment is completely independent because our assumptions and
goals are quite different from those in [12].

Intrinsic reflections and blowing down in spherical Coxeter
systems
Before stating the main result of this paper it is convenient to provide first some
basic information about intrinsic reflections in finite Coxeter groups.
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. We call (W, S) spherical if W is a finite group.
A subset J of S is called a direct factor if J 6= ∅ and [J, S \ J] = 1; moreover (W, S)
is called irreducible if S is the only direct factor of (W, S).
The irreducible spherical Coxeter systems are known. We denote their types
(i.e. their diagrams) as in [10] with the only exception that we use here Cn instead
of Bn . For each irreducible spherical Coxeter system (W, S) a description of W as
abstract group is found in Appendix 5 of [20] and the following is a straightforward
(but somewhat lengthy) exercise in finite group theory.
Fact 1: Let (W, S), (W ′, S ′ ) be two irreducible spherical Coxeter systems such
that W is isomorphic to W ′ . Then there exists an isomorphism from W onto W ′
mapping S onto S ′ .
For each irreducible spherical Coxeter system (W, S) the description of the automorphism group of the abstract group W is given in Theorem 31 of [8]. Combining
2

this with the previous fact one deduces the following.
Fact 2: Let (W, S) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system.
(i) If the center of W is trivial and (W, S) is not of type A5 , then each s ∈ S is
an intrinsic reflection of W .
(ii) If (W, S) is of type A1 , H3 , E7 or I2 (4k) for some k ∈ N, then each s ∈ S is
an intrinsic reflection of W .
(iii) If (W, S) is not covered by (i) or (ii), then no s ∈ S is an intrinsic reflection
of W .
Remark: Let 3 ≤ n ∈ N be odd and let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of type Cn
or I2 (2n). Then W can be written as a direct product W = A × W ′ where A is a
group of order 2 and W ′ has a Coxeter generating set S ′ such that (W ′ , S ′ ) is of
type Dn (resp. I2 (n)). Thus there is a Coxeter generating set R of W such that
|R| = |S| + 1.
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let R be a Coxeter generating set of W . As
the previous remark shows it may happen that |S| =
6 |R|. The question, to which
extent the abstract group W determines the cardinality of a Coxeter generating
set R was adressed by Mihalik and Ratcliffe in [12]. They define two procedures
of manipulating Coxeter generating sets which they call blowing up and blowing
down. These procedures rely on the examples described in the previous remark.
The investigation of intrinsic right-angled generators leads naturally to the consideration of a situation which is almost equivalent to their blowing down procedure.
In our context it is convenient to introduce the notion of a blowing down generator
for a right-angled generator s of a Coxeter system (W, S). The existence of such a
blowing down generator for s ensures that one can find a Coxeter generating set
R of W such that s is not in RW and hence that s is not an intrinsic reflection of
W.

The main result
The precise statement of our main result needs some preparation. In particular,
the definition of a blowing down generator for a right-angled generator in a Coxeter
system is somewhat technical.
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. For s, t ∈ S we denote the order of st by mst
and we call s ∈ S a right-angled generator of (W, S) if {mst | t ∈ S} ⊆ {1, 2, ∞}.
Moreover, for any generator s ∈ S we put s⊥ := {t ∈ S | mst = 2} and s∞ := {t ∈
S | mst = ∞}.
3

Let s ∈ S be a right-angled generator of (W, S). An s-component is an irreducible spherical component of the Coxeter system (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ). We call a ∈ s⊥ a
blowing down generator for s if the following conditions are satisfied:
(BDG1) If C denotes the irreducible component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) containing a, then
(hCi, C) is of type I2 (2k + 1) or D2k+1 for some 1 ≤ k ∈ N; moreover, if ρ denotes the longest element in the Coxeter system (hCi, C), then b := ρaρ 6= a.
(Note that b ∈ C because ρ normalizes C.)
(BDG2) If u0, u1 , . . . , un ∈ s∞ are such that ui−1 ui has finite order for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
then there exists an element x ∈ {a, b} such that {ui | 0 ≤ i ≤ n} ⊆ x∞ .
Main result: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of arbitrary rank and let s ∈ S
be a right-angled generator. Then s is an intrinsic reflection of W if and only if
each s-component has trivial center and there is no blowing down generator for s.
Moreover, if s is an intrinsic reflection and if R is a Coxeter generating set of W
containing s, then s is a right-angled generator of (W, R).
The proof of the main result will be completed in the final section of this paper.

Some consequences and remarks
2-spherical Coxeter systems: A Coxeter system (W, S) is called 2-spherical if
the order of st is finite for all s, t ∈ S. Let (W, S) be a 2-spherical, irreducible
Coxeter system such that W is an infinite group. Then Theorem 1 in [9] asserts
that any fundamental generator s ∈ S is an intrinsic reflection of W . Thus, if
(W, S) is irreducible and |W | = ∞ and if there exists a generator s ∈ S which
is not an intrinsic reflection of W , then there have to exist t, u ∈ S such that tu
has infinite order. In some sense, right-angled generators violate the 2-sphericity
condition for a Coxeter system to large extent. Thus, heuristically speaking, they
are good candidates for generators which are not intrinsic reflections W .
Right-angled Coxeter-systems: A Coxeter system (W, S) is called right-angled
if each s ∈ S is right-angled. It is a consequence of our main result that a generator
s ∈ S of a right-angled Coxeter system (W, S) is an intrinsic reflection of W if and
only if the Coxeter system (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) does not have a direct factor of type A1 . We
do not know a reference for this statement in the literature but it is implicitly in
[23] (for finite |S|) and [4].
Blowing-down generators: We already mentioned that blowing down for Coxeter generating sets was introduced in [12]. The conditions for the existence of a
blowing down are given in Theorem 3.7 in [12]. These conditions are slightly more
general than ours.
4

Strongly rigid Coxeter systems
We already mentioned that the problem of finding a characterization of intrinsic
fundamental generators in a Coxeter system in terms of its diagram arises naturally in the context of the isomorphism problem for Coxeter groups. For more
information about this open question we refer to [14] and to [18] for a more recent
account including the infinite rank case.
In the context of the isomorphism problem the notion of strong rigidity for
Coxeter systems has been introduced in [1]. A Coxeter system (W, S) is called
strongly rigid if each Coxeter generating set R of W is conjugate to S in W .
If (W, S) is strongly rigid, then the abstract group W determines the set of its
reflections and hence each s ∈ S is an intrinsic reflection; moreover, the abstract
group W also determines the diagram and all automorphisms of the abstract group
W are inner-by-graph. Thus, strongly rigid Coxeter systems form an interesting
class of Coxeter systems which one would like to characterize in terms of their
diagrams. An important step towards such a characterization is provided by a
substantial result of Caprace and Przytycki in [3]. Their result gives in particular
a characterization of all strongly reflection rigid Coxeter systems (see Definition
3.2 in [1]) in terms of their diagrams. It is a basic fact that a Coxeter system
(W, S) is strongly rigid if and only if it is strongly reflection rigid and if each s ∈ S
is an intrinsic reflection of W . Thus, combined with the result of [3] the solution
of the problem above would provide a characterization of all strongly rigid Coxeter
systems in terms of their diagrams.

Organisation of the paper
In order to obtain our main result, we have to prove both implications. One
of them is considerably harder to establish and the following Proposition is an
equivalent formulation of it:
Proposition: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of arbitrary rank and let s ∈ S be
a right-angled generator such that each s-component has trivial center. If there
exists a Coxeter generating set R of W such that s is not a reflection of (W, R),
then there exists a blowing down generator for s.
The proof of the Proposition above will be accomplished in the final section of the
paper.
The paper consists of two parts. In the first part we reduce the proof of the main
result to this Proposition. This will be accomplished at the end of Section 4. Then,
in the considerably more technical second part, we first provide several additional
tools that will be only needed in the proof of the Proposition.
The main tools that we shall use are the following:
5

A detailed analysis of spherical Coxeter systems: We shall need some
specific information about Krull-Remak-Schmidt decompositions of finite Coxeter
groups. Furthermore, for the Coxeter groups of type Cn , I2 (n) where 3 ≤ n ∈ N is
odd, we have to study all Coxeter generating sets. Later on, the outcome of this
analysis will lead us to three different cases in the proof of the Proposition above.
These will be treated in Sections 6, 8 and 9 separately.
The Coxeter complex: We shall consider the Cayley graph of a Coxeter system
(W, S) in order to prove Proposition 7.1 which is the key step in the proof of the
Proposition above. The Cayley graph is a building and we shall use techniques
from the theory of buildings. It is for this reason, that we call the Cayley graph
the Coxeter complex of (W, S).
Conjugacy theorems and Property FA: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and
J ⊆ S. We call J spherical (resp. 2-spherical) if hJi is a finite group (resp. if st
has finite order for all s, t ∈ J). In the proof of Proposition 7.1 we shall use the
result that each finite subgroup of W is conjugate to a subgroup of hJi for some
spherical J ⊆ S. There is also a characterization of the subgroups U of W which
are conjugate to subgroups hJi for 2-spherical J ⊆ S. It turns out that this is the
case if and only if U is an FA-group. This will be explained and applied in Section
9.
Acknowledgements: Much of the research was undertaken while the first author
was invited at the University of Tokyo. Both authors would like to thank this institution, and in particular Professor Itaru Terada, for providing us the possibility to
work together at the Tambara Institute for Mathematical Sciences. Furthermore,
we are grateful to both referees for their valuable comments.

2

Coxeter systems

In this paper we allow Coxeter systems of arbitrary rank. Whenever ’finite rank’
is required it will be mentioned explicitly. Dropping the assumption of finite rank
does not lead to any serious problems for most of the basic results on Coxeter
groups that we shall use here. But there are also exceptions to this since the corresponding statements have to be modified in order to hold also in the infinite rank
case (e.g. parabolic closure of a subgroup) and their proofs need some additional
argument. Moreover, even if a result is also valid in the infinite rank case, it is
not obvious to find it in this generality in the literature, since finite rank is often
explicitly required or tacitly assumed. In this section we collect the basic results
on Coxeter systems that will be used in later and sketch their proofs in the infinite
rank case if finite rank is not assumed.

6

Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. For s, t ∈ S we denote the order of st by mst .
The length of an element w ∈ W with respect to the generating set S is denoted by
ℓ(w). A subset J of S is called a direct factor of (W, S) if J 6= ∅ and [J, S \ J] = 1.
The Coxeter system (W, S) is called irreducible if S is the only direct factor of
(W, S). We put S W := {w −1sw | s ∈ S, w ∈ W }. The elements of S W are called
the reflections of (W, S).
In the following lemma we recall several basic facts about Coxeter systems. We
shall often use them in the sequel without explicitly referring to this lemma.
Lemma 2.1 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and J ⊆ S. Then (hJi, J) is a
Coxeter system and S W ∩ hJi = J hJi . Moreover, if ℓJ : hJi → N denotes its length
function, then ℓJ = ℓ |hJi . Finally, if K ⊆ S, then hJi ∩ hKi = hJ ∩ Ki.
Proof: See, for instance, Theorem 5.5 in [10] for the case where (W, S) has
finite rank. It is straightforward to reduce the infinite rank case to the finite rank
case.

Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let J ⊆ S. An irreducible component of
J is a direct factor C of (hJi, J) such that (hCi, C) is irreducible.
Lemma 2.2 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let J ⊆ S be a direct factor of
(W, S).
(i) If K := S \ J then W = hJi × hKi and ℓ(uv) = ℓ(u) + ℓ(v) for all u ∈ hJi
and v ∈ hKi.
(ii) If K ⊆ J is a direct factor of (hJi, J), then K is a direct factor of (W, S) as
well. In particular, the irreducible components of (W, S) form a partition of
S.
(iii) If there are finitely many irreducible components C1 , . . . , Cm of (W, S), then
W
P = ⊕1≤i≤m hCi i; moreover, if vi ∈ hCi i for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, then ℓ(v1 v2 . . . vm ) =
1≤i≤m ℓ(vi ).
Proof: Assertion (i) follows from the previous Lemma and Assertion (ii) is
straightforward from the definitions and Assertion (iii) follows from Assertions (i)
and (ii) by induction on m.


Spherical Coxeter systems
A Coxeter system (W, S) is called spherical if W is a finite group. A subset J of S
is called spherical if (hJi, J) is a spherical Coxeter system. Note that any spherical
Coxeter system is always of finite rank.
7

Lemma 2.3 Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system with S 6= ∅. Then there
exists a unique element ρ ∈ W such that ℓ(ρ) ≥ ℓ(w) for all w ∈ W . The element
ρ is an involution and S ρ = S.
Proof: See, for instance, Exercise 2 of Paragraph 5.6 in [10].



Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system. Then we call the unique element
ρ ∈ W of Lemma 2.3 the longest element of (W, S).
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. Then (W, S) is called of (−1)-type if it is spherical
and if its longest element is contained in the center of W . A subset J of S is said
to be of (−1)-type if the Coxeter system (hJi, J) is of (−1)-type.
Lemma 2.4 Let (W, S) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system and let ρ ∈ W
be the longest element in (W, S). If |Z(W )| > 1, then Z(W ) = hρi. In particular,
(W, S) is of (−1)-type if and only if Z(W ) = hρi.
Proof: This is deduced from the geometric representation of (W, S). See for
instance Exercise 1 of Paragraph 6.3 in [10].

Lemma 2.5 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of finite rank. Then (W, S) is spherical (resp. of (−1)-type) if and only if all irreducible components of (W, S) are
spherical (resp. of (−1)-type).
Suppose that (W, S) is spherical and let ρ be the longest element of (W, S).
Let C1 , . . . , Cm be the irreducible components of (W, S) and let ρi be P
the longest
element of (hCi i, Ci ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ m. Then ρ = ρ1 ρ2 . . . ρm and ℓ(ρ) = m
i=1 ℓ(ρi ).
If (W, S) is of (−1)-type, then the center of W is an elementary abelian subgroup
of W of order 2m which is generated by the set {ρi | 1 ≤ i ≤ m}.
Proof: This is straightforward from Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.4.



Lemma 2.6 Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system and let a 6= b ∈ S W be two
reflections of (W, S). Then there exist an element w ∈ W and a subset J of S
such that |J| = 2 and such that ha, biw ≤ hJi. Moreover, if ab = ba, then J is of
(−1)-type and (ab)w is the longest element in (hJi, J).
Proof: This is seen from the geometric representation of (W, S). We omit the
details.


8

Parabolic subgroups, finite subgroups and involutions
Lemma 2.7 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let I, J be finite subsets of S.
Suppose that there exists an element w ∈ W such that w −1 hIiw = hJi. Then
there exists an element v ∈ hIiw such that v −1 Iv = J. In particular, the Coxeter
systems (hIi, I) and (hJi, J) are isomorphic and we have |I| = |J|.
Proof: This follows from Proposition 12 in [9] for Coxeter systems of finite
rank. If (W, S) has infinite rank, we can find a finite subset K of S such that
I ∪ J ⊆ K and such that w ∈ hKi. Thus we can reduce the infinite rank case to
the finite rank case by arguing in the Coxeter system (hKi, K).

Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let J be a spherical subset of S. We denote
the longest element of (hJi, J) by ρJ .
Lemma 2.8 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, let J ⊆ S be finite and suppose that
I ⊆ S is of (−1)-type. Then the following hold.
(i) If w ∈ W is such that w −1ρI w ∈ hJi, then w −1hIiw ≤ hJi.
(ii) If J is of (−1)-type, then {w ∈ W | w −1ρI w = ρJ } = {w ∈ W | w −1 hIiw =
hJi}.
Proof: In the finite rank case, Assertion (i) is Lemma 20 and Assertion (ii)
is Lemma 21 in [9]. As in the proof of the previous lemma, the infinite rank case
is reduced to the finite rank case by considering a finite subset K of S such that
I ∪ J ∪ {w} ⊆ hKi.

Definition: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. A subgroup P ≤ W is called a
parabolic subgroup of (W, S) if there exist J ⊆ S and w ∈ W such that P = hJiw .
The parabolic closure of a subset X ⊆ W in (W, S) is the intersection of all
parabolic subgroups of (W, S) containing X. It is denoted by P cS (X).
Remark: The notion of the parabolic closure was introduced by Krammer in [11].

Proposition 2.9 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of finite rank, K ⊆ S and X ⊆
W . Then the following hold:
(i) The parabolic closure P cS (X) is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S);
(ii) if P is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S), then P ∩ hKi is a parabolic subgroup
of (hKi, K);

9

(iii) if X ⊆ hKi and P cK (X) denotes the parabolic closure in (hKi, K), then
P cK (X) = P cS (X).
Proof: Assertion (i) is an immediate consequence of the discussion following
Proposition 2.1.4 in [11]; for a formal statement and proof we refer to Theorem
1.2 in [21]. Assertion (ii) follows from Corollary 7 in [7] and Assertion (iii) is an
immediate consequence of Assertion (ii).

Corollary 2.10 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let X ⊆ W be finite. Then
P cS (X) is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S). In particular, if U ≤ W is a finitely
generated subgroup, then P cS (U) is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S).
Proof: As X is a finite subset of W , there exists a finite subset K of S
such that X ⊆ hKi. We denote its parabolic closure in (hKi, K) by P cK (X). It
follows from Assertion (ii) of Proposition 2.9 that P cK (X) is a parabolic subgroup
of (hKi, K). Note that, by definition, each parabolic subgroup of (hKi, K) is a
parabolic subgroup of (W, S). Therefore, P cK (X) is also a parabolic subgroup
of (W, S). Thus, the corollary is proved if we show P cK (X) = P cS (X). As
each parabolic subgroup of (hKi, K) is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S) we have
P cS (X) ⊆ P cK (X). Thus, the corollary is proved if we show P cK (X) ⊆ P cS (X)
which in turn follows from the following.
Claim: If P is a parabolic subgroup of (W, S) containing X, then it contains
P cK (X) as well.
Proof of the Claim: Let P be a parabolic subgroup of (W, S) which contains X.
By definition there exist J ⊆ S and w ∈ W such that P = whJiw −1. As X ⊆ P
we have Y := w −1 Xw ⊆ hJi. As X is finite, the set Y is finite as well and
therefore there exists a finite subset J1 of J such that Y ⊆ hJ1 i. We have also
a finite subset M of S such that w ∈ hMi. Now L := K ∪ J1 ∪ M is a finite
subset of S. Let P cL (X) denote the parabolic closure of X in (hLi, L). Since
K ⊆ L and X ⊆ hKi, it follows by Assertion (iii) of Proposition 2.10 (with
(W, S) = (hLi, L)) that P cK (X) = P cL (X). As J1 ⊆ L and w ∈ hLi, the group
P1 := whJ1iw −1 is a parabolic subgroup of (hLi, L) which contains X. Thus it
follows that P cK (X) = P cL (X) ≤ P1 ≤ P which yields the claim.

Remark: In a Coxeter system (W, S) of arbitrary rank it is not true, that the
parabolic closure of a subset X is a parabolic subgroup. A counter example is
described in the introduction of [17], where the problem of sensibly generalizing the
concept of the parabolic closure to Coxeter systems of arbitrary rank is addressed.

10

Lemma 2.11 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let U ≤ W be a finite subgroup
of W . Then there exist a spherical subset J of S and an element w ∈ W such that
U w := w −1Uw ≤ hJi. In particular, the parabolic closure P cS (U) is a finite group.
Proof: This follows from Assertion (a) of Proposition 3.2.1 in [11] in the finite
rank case. The reduction of the general case to the finite rank case is straightforward.

Corollary 2.12 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, let U ≤ W be a subgroup and
let x ∈ W be such that hU, xi is a finite subgroup of W . Then hP cS (U), xi is also
a finite subgroup of W .
Proof: Let H := hU, xi. By Lemma 2.11 there exist a spherical subset J ⊆ S
and w ∈ W such that H w ≤ hJi. We have U w ≤ hJi and therefore P cS (U w ) ≤ hJi.
Hence (hP cS (U), xi)w = hP cS (U w ), xw i ≤ hJi is a finite group which yields the
claim.

Lemma 2.13 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let a 6= b ∈ S W be such that
ab has finite order. Then there exist an element w ∈ W and a subset J of S such
that |J| = 2 and ha, biw ≤ hJi. Moreover, if ab = ba, then J is of (−1)-type and
(ab)w is the longest element in (hJi, J).
Proof: As ab has finite order, the group ha, bi is finite. By Lemma 2.11 there
exist a spherical subset K of S and an element w ∈ W such that ha, biw ≤ hKi.
By Lemma 2.1 aw , bw are reflections of (hKi, K) and we can apply Lemma 2.6 to
get the result.

Corollary 2.14 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, let I ⊆ S be of (−1)-type and let
r be the longest element in (hIi, I). If v ∈ W is such that hv, ri is a finite subgroup
of W , then h{v} ∪ Ii is a finite subgroup of W as well.
Proof: Since hv, ri is a finite subgroup of W , there exist a spherical subset J
of S and w ∈ W such that hv, riw ≤ hJi. It follows from Lemma 2.8 that I w ⊆ hJi.
As hJi is a finite group containing v w and I w , the group h{v}∪Ii is finite as well. 
Lemma 2.15 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let r ∈ W be an involution.
Then there exist a subset J of S and an element w ∈ W such that J is of (−1)type and such that w −1 rw = ρJ . Moreover, if K ⊆ S is of (−1)-type and v ∈ W
is such that v −1 rv = ρK , then |K| = |J|.
11

Proof: The
systems of finite
the reduction of
assertion follows

first assertion is a well known result of Richardson. For Coxeter
rank it can be found, for instance, in Paragraph 8.3 in [10] and
the general case to finite rank causes no problems. The second
from Assertion (ii) of Lemma 2.8 and Lemma 2.7.


Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let r ∈ W be an involution. By the
previous lemma there exists J ⊆ S of (−1)-type such that r is conjugate to ρJ .
The S-rank of r is defined to be the cardinality of J which makes sense in view of
the second assertion of the previous lemma. Note that an involution has S-rank
one if and only if it is a reflection of (W, S).
Proposition 2.16 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let J ⊆ S be a spherical
subset of S and let r be the longest element of (hJi, J). Then the following hold:
(i) If J is of (−1)-type, then CW (r) = NW (hJi).
(ii) Suppose that [s, J] = 1 for all s ∈ S \ J having the property that h{s} ∪ Ji is
a finite group. Then NW (hJi) = hJi × hJ ⊥ i.
Proof: Assertion (i) is a consequence of Assertion (ii) of Lemma 2.8. Assertion (ii) is a consequence of the main result in [2] in the finite rank case. As in the
proof of Lemma 2.7 the infinite rank case is easily settled using the fact that the
assertion holds in the finite rank case.


3

Coxeter generating sets

Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. In this section we shall investigate conditions
on the diagram of (W, S) which ensure that the Coxeter generating set S can be
replaced by another one. In the first paragraph we provide some very basic observations in the situation where the Coxeter system admits a visible decomposition
as a direct product or as free product with amalgamation. In the second paragraph
we provide specific information in the spherical case which will play an important
role in the sequel.

Direct products and free products with amalgamation
We recall some definitions from basic group theory. Let G be a group and let
A, B be subgroups. We call G the direct product of A and B if A and B are
normal subgroups, G = AB and |A ∩ B| = 1. We call G the free product with
12

amalgamation of A and B if G = hA, Bi and if the following universal property is
satisfied:
(FPWA) If H is a group and ϕA : A → H, ϕB : B → H are homomorphisms such
that ϕA |A∩B = ϕB |A∩B , then there exists a homomorphism ϕ : G → H such
that ϕ |A = ϕA and ϕ |B = ϕB .
We shall need the following basic observation about free products with amalgamation.
Lemma 3.1 Let G be a group and let A, B be subgroups of G such that G is the
free product with amalgamation of A and B. Then ab has infinite order for all
(a, b) ∈ (A \ B) × (B \ A).
Proof: This can be seen by using the normal form for elements in free products with amalgamation. See for instance Theorem 1 in Paragraph 1.2 in [22]. 
Lemma 3.2 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let K, L ⊆ S be such that S =
K ∪ L.
(i) If K ∩ L = ∅ and mkl = 2 for all (k, l) ∈ K × L, then W is the direct product
of hKi and hLi.
(ii) If mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ (K \ L) × (L \ K), then W is the free product with
amalgamation of hKi and hLi.
Proof: Note first that W is generated by hKi and hLi by the assumption that
S = K ∪ L. Let J = K ∩ L. Then hJi = hKi ∩ hLi by Lemma 2.1.
Under the assumptions of Assertion (i) it follows |hKi ∩ hLi| = 1 and that hKi
and hLi centralize each other. As we already observed that W is generated by hKi
and hLi the first assertion follows.
Let H be a group and let ϕK : hKi → H and ϕL : hLi → H be homomorphisms
which coincide on hKi ∩ hLi. Then ϕK and ϕL coincide on J and therefore we
have a mapping ϕ : S → H such that ϕ |K = ϕK and ϕ |L = ϕL . As ϕK (resp. ϕL )
is a homomorphism, it follows that (ϕ(a)ϕ(b))mab = 1 for all a, b ∈ K (resp. for
all a, b ∈ L). As mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ (K \ L) × (L \ K), it follows from the
universal property of Coxeter systems that ϕ is the restriction of a homomorphism
ϕS from W to H. Thus we have shown that (FPWA) holds which finishes the
proof of Assertion (ii).

Proposition 3.3 Let G be a group, let A, B be subgroups and let K (resp. L) be
a Coxeter generating set of A (resp. B).
13

(i) If G is the direct product of A and B, then S := K ∪L is a Coxeter generating
set of G.
(ii) If G is the free product with amalgamation of A and B and J is a Coxeter
generating set of A ∩ B contained in K and L, then S := K ∪ L is a Coxeter
generating set of G.
Proof: Assertion (i) is obvious. In order to prove Assertion (ii) we first remark
that ab has infinite order for all (a, b) ∈ (A \ B) × (B \ A) by Lemma 3.1.
In view of Lemma 2.1 we have k 6∈ hJi for each k ∈ K \ L and l 6∈ hJi for each
l ∈ L \ K. Thus kl has infinite order for all (k, l) ∈ (K \ L) × (L \ K).
For s, t ∈ S we let mst denote the order of st. By what we have said so far we
already know that mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ (K \ L) × (L \ K).
Let H be a group and let α : S → H be a map such that (α(x)α(y))mxy = 1
for all x, y ∈ S with mxy 6= ∞. As K (resp. L) is a Coxeter generating set of A
(resp. B), there exists a unique homomorphism ϕA (resp. ϕB ) from A (resp. B)
to H such that ϕA (k) = α(k) for all k ∈ K (resp. ϕB (l) = α(l) for all l ∈ L).
As ϕA (j) = α(j) = ϕB (j) for each j ∈ J and as hJi = A ∩ B, it follows that
ϕA |A∩B = ϕB |A∩B . As G is the free product with amalgamation of A and B we
have a homomorphism ϕ : G → H such that ϕ |A = ϕA and ϕ |B = ϕB and hence
ϕ |S = α. This shows that (G, S) is indeed a Coxeter system and finishes the proof
of Assertion (ii).

Corollary 3.4 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, let K, L ⊆ S be such that S =
K ∪ L and let K ′ (resp. L′ ) be a Coxeter generating set of hKi (resp. hLi). Then
S ′ := K ′ ∪ L′ is a Coxeter generating set of W if one of the following conditions
is satisfied.
(i) K ∩ L = ∅ and mkl = 2 for all (k, l) ∈ K × L;
(ii) K ∩ L ⊆ K ′ ∩ L′ and mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ (K \ L) × (L \ K).
Proof: Let A := hKi and B := hLi.
Under the assumptions of Assertion (i) it follows from Lemma 3.2 that W is
the direct product of A and B and the claim follows then from the first assertion
of Proposition 3.3.
Under the assumptions of Assertion (ii) it follows from Lemma 3.2 that W is
the free product with amalgamation of A and B. By Lemma 2.1 we also know
that hK ∩ Li = A ∩ B. Hence the second assertion of Proposition 3.3 finishes the
proof of the second statement of the corollary.


14

Lemma 3.5 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system and let R be a Coxeter generating
set of W . If R ⊆ S W , then RW = S W .
Proof: This is a consequence of a result on subgroups of Coxeter groups generated by reflections which has been found independently by Deodhar [5] and Dyer
[6]. For an explicit statement and proof we refer to Corollary A.2 in [3].


Spherical Coxeter systems
Lemma 3.6 Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system, let s ∈ S be such that
s ∈ Z(W ), let C := S \ {s} and let ρ be the longest element of (hCi, C). Then the
following hold for all 1 ≤ k ∈ N:
(i) Suppose that (hCi, C) is of type I2 (2k+1) and that a ∈ C. Then b := ρaρ ∈ C
and (S \ {s, b}) ∪ {sρ} is a Coxeter generating set of type I2 (4k + 2) of W .
Moreover, if R is any Coxeter generating set of type I2 (4k + 2) of W , then
{a, b, sρ} ⊆ RW ⊆ aW ∪ (sρ)W .
(ii) Suppose that (hCi, C) is of type D2k+1 and that a ∈ C is such that b := ρaρ 6=
a. Then b ∈ C and (S \ {s, b}) ∪ {sρ} is a Coxeter generating set of type
C2k+1 of W . Moreover, if R is any Coxeter generating set of type C2k+1 of
W , then sρ ∈ RW and RW ∩ {c, sc} =
6 ∅ for each c ∈ C; if a ∈ RW we have
R ⊆ (sρ)W ∪ aW and if sa ∈ RW we have R ⊆ (sρ)W ∪ (sa)W .
Proof: As s is in the center of W , we have (asρ)2 = aρaρ = ab and hence
the order of asρ is 2mab . It readily follows that R satisfies the Coxeter relations
in (i) and (ii). By checking the orders of the corresponding finite Coxeter groups,
it follows that R is indeed a Coxeter generating set. The second statement in
Assertion (i) follows from the fact that all non-central involutions are reflections
in a dihedral group. The second statement in Assertion (ii) follows by considering
the automorphism group of the Coxeter groups of type C2k+1 (see for instance
Theorem 31 in [8]).

Proposition 3.7 Let (W, S) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system. Suppose
that there are subgroups A and B such that 1 < |A| ≤ |B| and such that W is the
direct product of A and B. Then A = Z(W ) and one of the following holds:
(i) (W, S) is of type E7 and H3 and B is not a Coxeter group.
(ii) (W, S) is of type I2 (4k + 2) for some 1 ≤ k ∈ N and B is a Coxeter group.
Moreover, all Coxeter generating sets of B are of type I2 (2k + 1).
15

(iii) (W, S) is of type C2k+1 for some 1 ≤ k ∈ N and B is a Coxeter group.
Moreover, all Coxeter generating sets of B are of type D2k+1 .
Proof: Let (W, S) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system. Then the decompositions of W as a non-trivial direct product can be determined by going
through the list. This is done in the final section of [19]. It follows from Fact 1
of the introduction that all irreducible Coxeter generating sets of a finite Coxeter
group are conjugate in its automorphism group. This observation yields the second
statements of Assertions (ii) and (iii).

Corollary 3.8 Let (W, R) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system and let W =
A × B be a non-trivial decomposition of W as a direct product such that |A| ≤ |B|.
Then (W, R) is of (−1)-type and A = hsi where s is the longest element in (W, R)
and B admits no proper decomposition as a direct product.
If B is a Coxeter group with Coxeter generating set C and if ρ denotes the
longest element in (B, C), then sρ ∈ RW . Moreover, one of the following holds:
I) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (W, R) is of type I2 (4k + 2) and (B, C) is
of type I2 (2k + 1). Moreover C ⊆ RW and R ⊆ (sρ)W ∪ aW for any a ∈ C.
D) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (W, R) is of type C2k+1 and (B, C) is of
type D2k+1 . Moreover C ⊆ RW and R ⊆ (sρ)W ∪ aW for any a ∈ C.
D̄) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (W, R) is of type C2k+1 and (B, C) is of
type D2k+1 . Moreover C̄ := {sc | c ∈ C} ⊆ RW and R ⊆ (sρ)W ∪ (sa)W for
any a ∈ C.
Proof: This follows from Lemma 3.6 and Proposition 3.7.

4



Right-angled generators

In this section we prove basic facts about right-angled generators of Coxeter systems. In the finite rank case, several of these facts follow from the more general
results about the finite continuation in [9]. Although the results there do not apply
directly to the infinite rank case, our arguments are nevertheless inspired by that
paper. Combining our results on right-angled generators with the information of
the previous sections we will accomplish the ’easy’ direction of the main result
which is Proposition 4.11. Furthermore, we shall give a brief outline on the proof
of the opposite direction of the main result.
16

Definition: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. For s ∈ S we put s⊥ := {t ∈ S |
mst = 2} and s∞ := {t ∈ S | mst = ∞} and we call s a right-angled generator of
(W, S) if S = {s} ∪ s⊥ ∪ s∞ .
Convention for this section: Throughout this section (W, S) is a Coxeter system (possibly of infinite rank) and s ∈ S is a right-angled generator of (W, S).
Moreover, π : W −→ {+1, −1} is the unique homomorphism mapping s onto −1
and s′ onto +1 for all s 6= s′ ∈ S and V denotes the kernel of π.
Lemma 4.1 The centralizer of s in W is the group h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
Proof: This follows from Assertion (ii) of Proposition 2.16 with J := {s}. 

Lemma 4.2 We have sW ∩ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i = {s}.
Proof: Let w ∈ W be such that t = sw ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i. As s is not in V which
is a normal subgroup of W , it follows that t is not in V . As t ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i, there
exists an element u ∈ hs⊥ i ≤ CW (s) such that t = su. As t2 = s2 = [s, u] = 1, we
have u2 = 1.
Suppose u 6= 1W . By Lemma 2.15 applied to (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) there exists a nonempty (−1)-set J ⊆ s⊥ and an element x ∈ hs⊥ i ≤ CW (s) such that ux is the
longest element in (hJi, J). As [s, x] = 1 it follows that (sw )x = (su)x = sux is the
longest element of the (−1)-set K := {s} ∪ J which is a contradiction, because
|K| ≥ 2 and s is a reflection of (W, S).

Lemma 4.3 Let x ∈ W be such that hs, xi is a finite subgroup of W . Then
[s, x] = 1 and in particular x ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
Proof: We first consider the case where x ∈ V . By Lemma 2.11 there exist a
spherical subset J of S and an element w ∈ W such that hs, xiw ≤ hJi. As hs, xi is
not contained in V which is a normal subgroup of W , hs, xiw is not contained in V .
As S \ {s} ⊆ V it follows that s ∈ J. Since J is spherical and contains s, it follows
that J ⊆ {s} ∪ s⊥ . It follows that sw ∈ hJi ≤ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i and applying Lemma 4.2
we see that sw = s which means [s, w] = 1. Note that xw ∈ V ∩ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i = hs⊥ i
and hence [s, x]w = [sw , xw ] = [s, xw ] = 1 which implies [s, x] = 1.
Suppose now that x is not in V . Then v := sx ∈ V and hs, vi = hs, xi is a
finite subgroup of W . By what we know already it follows that 1 = [s, v] = [s, sx]
which implies [s, x] = 1.
The last assertion of the lemma follows from Lemma 4.1.


17

Proposition 4.4 Let r ∈ hs⊥ i be an involution and x ∈ W be such that hsr, xi is
a finite subgroup of W . Then [s, x] = 1 and in particular x ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
Proof: As in the proof of Lemma 4.3 we consider first the case where x ∈ V .
As r ∈ hs⊥ i there exists a (−1)-set J ⊆ s⊥ and y ∈ hs⊥ i such that u := r y is the
longest element in (hJi, J). Setting K := J ∪ {s}, it follows that K is of (−1)type and that su is the longest element in (hKi, K). As y ∈ hs⊥ i it follows that
sy = s and therefore hsu, xy i is a finite group. It follows from Corollary 2.14 that
hK ∪ {xy }i is a finite group which implies that hs, xy i is a finite group. Applying
now Lemma 4.3 we have 1 = [s, xy ] = [sy , xy ] = [s, x]y and hence [s, x] = 1.
Suppose now that x is not in V and put v := srx. Then v ∈ V and hsr, vi =
hsr, xi is a finite group. By what we know from the first case, it follows that
1 = [s, v] = [s, srx] and as [s, r] = 1 is follows that [s, x] = 1.
The last assertion of the lemma follows from Lemma 4.1.

Corollary 4.5 Let r ∈ hs⊥ i be an involution and let u ∈ s∞ . Then (sr)u has
infinite order.
Proof: Assume by contradiction that (sr)u has finite order. As sr and u
are both involutions, it follows that hsr, ui is a finite subgroup of W . Thus we
are in the position to apply Proposition 4.4 which yields [s, u] = 1 and hence a
contradiction.


s-components
We first recall the definition of an s-component: An s-component is a spherical
irreducible component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ).
Proposition 4.6 Let C be an s-component of (−1)-type and let ρ be the longest
element in (hCi, C). Then R := {sρ} ∪ (S \ {s}) is a Coxeter generating set of W
and s is not a reflection of (W, R).
Proof: We define the map α : S → W by α(s) := sρ and α(t) := t for all
t ∈ S \ {s}.
We claim that the order of α(u)α(v) is equal to the order of uv for all u, v ∈ S.
This is obvious if u 6= s 6= v and if u = s = v since ρ is an involution contained in
hs⊥ i ≤ CW (s) and α(s) = sρ. It remains to consider the case where u = s 6= v.
As C is an irreducible component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) of (−1)-type, it follows that ρ is in
the center of hs⊥ i. Thus, if v ∈ s⊥ , we have [α(s), α(v)] = [sρ, v] = 1 and hence
the order of α(s)α(v) = sρv is equal 2 which is also the order of sv. If v ∈ s∞ ,
then α(s)α(v) = sρv has infinite order by Corollary 4.5. Thus our claim is proved.
18

In view of the above and by the universal property of (W, S), there is a unique
endomorphism τ of W such that τ |S = α and its square is easily seen to be the
identity on W . Thus τ is an automorphism and R := τ (S) is a Coxeter generating
set of W .
Assume, by contradiction, that s ∈ RW . Then it follows that S ⊆ RW because S \ {s} ⊆ R. By Lemma 3.5 this implies S W = RW . As sρ ∈ R it
follows that sρ ∈ S W . This is a contradiction because sρ is the longest element of
(h{s} ∪ Ci, {s} ∪ C) and |{s} ∪ C| > 1.

Corollary 4.7 If there exists an s-component of (−1)-type, then s is not an intrinsic reflection of W .

Blowing down generators
We first recall the definition of a blowing down generator for s: We call a ∈ s⊥ a
blowing down generator for s if the following conditions are satisfied:
(BDG1) If C denotes the irreducible component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) containing a, then
(hCi, C) is of type I2 (2k +1) or D2k+1 for some k ∈ N; moreover, if ρ denotes
the longest element in the Coxeter system (hCi, C), then b := ρaρ 6= a.
(BDG2) If u0, u1 , . . . , un ∈ s∞ are such that ui−1 ui has finite order for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
then there exists an element x ∈ {a, b} such that {ui | 0 ≤ i ≤ n} ⊆ x∞ .
Let a be a blowing down generator for s and let C, ρ and b = ρaρ be as in
the previous definition. Then we call a a proper blowing down generator for s if
s∞ ⊆ b∞ .
Proposition 4.8 Suppose that a ∈ s⊥ is a blowing down generator for s. Then
there exists a Coxeter generating set S1 of W with the following properties.
(i) {s} ∪ s⊥ ⊆ S1 ;
(ii) S1W = S W ;
(iii) s is a right-angled generator of (W, S1 );
(iv) a is a proper blowing down generator for s with respect to the generating set
S1 .

19

Proof: Let K0 := {t ∈ s∞ | mbt 6= ∞} and for 1 ≤ n ∈ N let Kn := {u ∈
s | mtu 6= ∞ for some t ∈ Kn−1 } and put K := ∪n≥0 Kn . It follows from the
construction of the set K that mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ K × (s∞ \ K). As a is a
blowing down generator for s it follows also that K ⊆ a∞ . As C is an irreducible
component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) we have also that ({s} ∪ s⊥ ) \ C ⊆ C ⊥ . We are now in the
position to apply a diagram twist as described in [1] Definition 4.4. with V := C
and U := K. Setting S1 = (S \ K) ∪ K ′ with K ′ := {ρxρ | x ∈ K} we obtain a
new Coxeter generating set of W by Theorem 4.5 of [1]. By the definition of S1
we have {s} ∪ s⊥ ⊆ S1 ⊆ S W , which implies S W = S1W by Lemma 3.5. A straight
forward checking reveals that s is also a right-angled generator of (W, S1 ) and that
a is indeed a proper blowing down generator for s with respect to S1 .

∞

Proposition 4.9 Let a ∈ s⊥ be a proper blowing down generator for s. Let C be
the irreducible component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) containing a, let ρ be the longest element
in (hCi, C) and let b := ρaρ. Then R := (S \ {s, b}) ∪ {sρ} is a Coxeter generating
set of W and s 6∈ RW .
Proof: Let I := {s} ∪ C and I1 := (I \ {s, b}) ∪ {sρ}. It follows from Lemma
3.6 that I1 is a Coxeter generating set of hIi. Let X := {s} ∪ s⊥ \ I. Then mix = 2
for all (i, x) ∈ I × X. By Assertion (i) of Corollary 3.4 it follows that I1 ∪ X is a
Coxeter generating set of h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
We now set K := {s} ∪ s⊥ . By what we have just proved it follows that K1 :=
(K \ {b, s}) ∪ {sρ} is a Coxeter generating set of K. Setting L := (K \ {b, s}) ∪ s∞
we have J := K ∩ L = K \ {s, b}. Thus K \ L = {s, b} and L \ K = s∞ ⊆ b∞ . We
conclude that mkl = ∞ for all (k, l) ∈ (K \L)×(L\K). Thus we are in the position
to apply Assertion (ii) of Corollary 3.4 in order to see that (S \ {s, b}) ∪ {sρ} is a
Coxeter generating set of W .
As a ∈ R, we have also b = ρaρ ∈ RW . Assume, by contradiction, that s ∈ RW .
Then S ⊆ RW which implies S W = RW by Lemma 3.5 and hence sρ ∈ R is a
reflection of (W, S). As ρ 6= 1 Lemma 4.2 yields a contradiction. Hence s is not a
reflection of (W, R) which concludes the proof of the proposition.

Corollary 4.10 If there exists a blowing down generator a ∈ s⊥ for s, then s is
not an intrinsic reflection of (W, S).
Proof: Let a ∈ s⊥ be a blowing down generator for s and let S1 be as in
Proposition 4.8. Now, by Proposition 4.9 applied to (W, S1 ) there exists a Coxeter
generating set R of W such that s is not a reflection of (W, R).


20

Remark on the proof of the main result
Corollaries 4.7 and 4.10 yield the following Proposition.
Proposition 4.11 If s is an intrinsic reflection of (W, S), then each s-component
has trivial center and there are no blowing down generators for s.
Proposition 4.11 provides one direction of the main result. In the remainder
of the paper we shall prove the Proposition of the introduction which is just a
reformulation of the other direction. In order to do this we have to establish
the existence of a blowing down generator for s. Here, checking Axiom (BDG2)
requires most of the work. In Proposition 5.1 we shall divide up the problem into
three cases which will be treated separately in the subsequent sections. One of
these cases is rather easy to handle. In order to settle the remaining two cases we
need an additional tool which is Proposition 7.1. Its proof uses the geometry of
the Cayley graph of (W, S).

5

Reduction to three cases

As already pointed out, the proof of the opposite direction of the main result
splits into three cases. In this section we shall establish this case distinction. More
specifically, the goal of this subsection is to prove the following.
Proposition 5.1 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, let s ∈ S be a right-angled
generator of (W, S) such that there is no s-component of (−1)-type and suppose
that there is a Coxeter generating set T of W such that s is not a reflection of
(W, T ). Then there exists a Coxeter generating set R of W , an irreducible subset
J of R of (−1)-type and an s-component C such that s is the longest element of
(hJi, J), hJi = hsi × hCi and sρ ∈ J hJi where ρ denotes the longest element in
(hCi, C). Moreover, one of the following holds.
I) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (hJi, J) is of type I2 (4k + 2) and (hCi, C)
is of type I2 (2k + 1). Moreover C ⊆ J hJi and J ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ ahJi for any
a ∈ C.
D) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (hJi, J) is of type C2k+1 and (hCi, C) is of
type D2k+1 . Moreover C ⊆ J hJi and R ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ ahJi for any a ∈ C.
D̄) There exists 1 ≤ k ∈ N such that (hJi, J) is of type C2k+1 and (hCi, C) is
of type D2k+1 . Moreover C̄ := {sc | c ∈ C} ⊆ J hJi and R ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ (sa)hJi
for any a ∈ C.

21

On decompositions of finite Coxeter groups as direct products
Proposition 5.2 Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system and let s ∈ S be such
that Z(W ) = hsi. Suppose that A and B are subgroups of W such that W = A×B.
Suppose further that hsi is properly contained in A and that there exists a subset
J of A such that (A, J) is an irreducible Coxeter system. Then there exists an
irreducible component C 6= {s} of (W, S) such that A = hsi × hCi.
In order to establish the proof of this proposition it is convenient to recall
some basic results on direct product decompositions of groups and in particular,
the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem.
Definition: A group G is called indecomposable if |G| > 1 and if G is not the
inner direct product of two non-trivial subgroups. A family (Hi )1≤i≤n of subgroups
of G is called a Remak-decomposition of G if G is the inner direct product of the
(Hi )1≤i≤n and if Hi is indecomposable for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
The following observation is an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.8.
Lemma 5.3 Let (W, S) be an irreducible spherical Coxeter system and let H1 , . . . , Hn
be non-trivial subgroups of W such that W = H1 × H2 . . . × Hn . Then n ≤ 2.
The following is obvious.
Lemma 5.4 Any finite group admits a Remak decomposition.
Definition: Let G be a group and α ∈ Aut(G). Then α is called a central
automorphism of G if α induces the identity on G/Z(G), i.e. if α(g) ∈ gZ(G) for
all g ∈ G.
We shall need the following version of the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem.
Proposition 5.5 Let G be a finite group and let (Hi )1≤i≤n and (Kj )1≤j≤m be
Remak decompositions of G. Then n = m and there exists a permutation π ∈
Sym(n) and a central autormorphism α of G such that α(Hi ) = Kπ(i) for all
1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Proof: This is a special case of Theorem 3.3.8 in [16].



Corollary 5.6 Let G be a finite group and let (Hi )0≤i≤n be a Remak decomposition
of G such that H0 = Z(G). Let A, B ≤ G be such that G = A × B and Z(G) ≤ A.
Then there exist a subset I of {1, . . . , n} such that A = Z(G) × hHi | i ∈ Ii.

22

Proof: Let (Xi )1≤i≤k and (Yj )1≤j≤l be Remak decompositions of A and B.
Then (X1 , . . . , Xk , Y1, . . . , Yl ) is a Remak decomposition of G. As any automorphism of G stabilizes Z(G) = H0 it follows from Proposition 5.5 that Xi = Z(G)
for some 1 ≤ i ≤ k because of the assumption Z(G) ≤ A. Without loss of generality we may assume Xk = Z(G). We now put K0 = Z(G) = H0 , Ki := Xi
for 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1 and Ki := Yi−k+1 for k ≤ i ≤ m := l + k − 1. It follows from
Proposition 5.5 that m = n and that there are a permutation π ∈ Sym(n) and
a central automorphism α of G such that α(Hi ) = Ki for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Setting
I := π −1 ({1, . . . , k − 1}) the assertion follows.

Lemma 5.7 Let (W, S) be a spherical Coxeter system and let s ∈ S be such that
Z(W ) = hsi. Let C1 , . . . , Cn be the irreducible components of (W, S) distinct from
C0 := {s}. Then (hCi i)0≤i≤n is a Remak decomposition of W .
Proof: Let 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The Coxeter system (hCi i, Ci ) is an irreducible Coxeter
system. Moreover, if z ∈ Z(hCi i), then z ∈ Z(W ) ∩ hCi i which is the trivial group.
It follows from Corollary 3.8 that hCi i is indecomposable which finishes the proof.

Proof of Proposition 5.2: Let C1 , . . . , Cn be the irreducible components of
(W, S) distinct from C0 := {s}. By Lemma 5.7 (hCi i)0≤i≤n is a Remak decomposition of W .
Let A and B be subgroups of W satisfying the hypothesis of the Proposition.
Thus we have that hsi = Z(W ) is properly contained in A. As (hCi i)0≤i≤n is a
Remak decomposition of W Corollary 5.6 yields a subset I of {1, . . . , n} such that
A = Z(W ) × hCi | i ∈ Ii. As Z(W ) is properly contained in A we have I 6= ∅.
By our assumption that there is an irreducible Coxeter generating set J of A it
follows from Lemma 5.3 that |I| ≤ 1. Thus, A = Z(W ) × hCi i for some 1 ≤ i ≤ n
which is precisely the claim of the proposition.

More on right-angled generators
Convention: Throughout this subsection (W, S) is a Coxeter system and s ∈ S
is a right-angled generator of (W, S). We let π : W → {+1, −1} be the unique
homomorphism mapping s onto −1 and s′ onto +1 for all s′ ∈ S which are distinct
from s and we denote its kernel by V . Moreover, we assume that there is no scomponent of (W, S) which is of (−1)-type.
Lemma 5.8 The center of hs⊥ i is trivial.

23

Proof: This follows from the fact, that there is no irreducible component of
(hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) of (−1)-type.

Lemma 5.9 Let T be a Coxeter generating set of W such that s is not a reflection
of (W, T ). Then there exists a Coxeter generating set R of W and a (−1)-subset
J of R such that |J| ≥ 2 and s is the longest element of (hJi, J).
Proof: By Lemma 2.15 there exists a (−1)-subset K of T and an element
w ∈ W such that sw is the longest element in (hKi, K). As s is not in T W , we
have |K| ≥ 2. Setting v := w −1, R := T v and J := K v the claim follows.

Proposition 5.10 Let R be a Coxeter generating set of W and let J ⊆ R be of
(−1)-type such that s is the longest element of (hJi, J). Then the following hold:
(i) If r ∈ R \ J is such that h{r} ∪ Ji is a finite group, then [J, r] = 1.
(ii) Let K := {r ∈ R | r 6∈ J and [r, J] = 1}. Then h{s} ∪ s⊥ i = CW (s) =
NW (hJi) = hJi × hKi.
(iii) J is an irreducible subset of R.
(iv) if |J| ≥ 2 then there exists a spherical irreducible component of C of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ )
such that hJi = hsi × hCi.
Proof: As hJi is a finite subgroup containing s we have hJi ≤ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i
and also that hJi is not contained in V . Thus there exists a σ ∈ J such that
σ 6∈ V which we can write as σ = sρ for some involution ρ ∈ hs⊥ i. Suppose that
r ∈ R \ J is such that rσ has finite order, then hσ, ri is a finite subgroup of W
and by Proposition 4.4 we obtain that [s, r] = 1. As s is the longest element in
(hJi, J), it follows that r ∈ CW (s) = NW (hJi). We conclude that [r, J] = 1. This
yields Assertion (i).
As s is the longest element of (hJi, J) we have CW (s) = NW (hJi) by Assertion
(i) of Proposition 2.16; Assertion (ii) of Proposition 2.16 and Assertion (i) yield
NW (hJi) = hJi × hKi; finally we have CW (s) = h{s} ∪ s⊥ i by Lemma 4.1. This
finishes the proof of Assertion (ii).
By Assertion (ii) we have decomposition of h{s} ∪ s⊥ i as a direct product
hJi × hKi. Assume by contradiction, that J is not irreducible. Then, by Lemma
2.5, the center of hJi is of order at least 4, because (hJi, J) is of (−1)-type. It
follows that the center of h{s} ∪ s⊥ i has order at least 4. Moding out hsi this
yields that hs⊥ i has a non-trivial center and contradicts Lemma 5.8. This finishes
the proof of Assertion (iii).
24

Let P := P cS (hJi) be the parabolic closure of hJi in (W, S). As hJi is a finite
normal subgroup of h{s} ∪ s⊥ i, the group P is also a finite, normal subgroup of
h{s}∪s⊥ i. As P is a parabolic subgroup of the Coxeter system (h{s}∪s⊥ i, {s}∪s⊥ ),
it follows that there are irreducible spherical components C1 , . . . , Cn of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ )
such that P = hsi × hC1 i × . . . × hCn i. For 1 ≤ i ≤ n the set Ci is an s-component
and since there are no s-components of (−1)-type by assumption, it follows that
the center of hCi i is trivial. Thus hsi is the center of P .
Setting Q := hKi ∩ P we have a direct decomposition P = hJi × Q. We are
now in the position to apply Proposition 5.2 with W := P, A := hJi and B := Q.
It follows that there exists an 1 ≤ i ≤ n such that hJi = hsi × hCi i. As Ci is an
irreducible spherical component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) this finishes the proof of Assertion
(iv).

Proof of Proposition 5.1: By Lemma 5.9 there exists a Coxeter generating
set R of W and a (−1)-subset J of R such that |J| ≥ 2 and such that s is the
longest element of (hJi, J). By Assertion (iv) of Proposition 5.10 there exists
an irreducible spherical component C of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) such that hJi = hsi × hCi.
Applying now Corollary 3.8 with (W, R) := (hJi, J), A := hsi and B := hCi,
yields the proposition.

6

The case D̄

Convention: Throughout this section (W, S) is a Coxeter system, s ∈ S is a rightangled reflection of (W, S), π : W → {+1, −1} is the homomorphism which sends
s onto −1 and t onto +1 for all t ∈ S \ {s} and V ≤ W is its kernel. Moreover,
C ⊆ s⊥ is a s-component of type D2k+1 , ρ is the longest element of (hCi, C) and
a ∈ C is such that ρaρ 6= a. Finally, R ⊆ W is a Coxeter generating set of W and
J ⊆ R is of type C2k+1 and such that hJi = hsi × hCi and J ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ (sa)hJi .
The goal of this section is to prove the following.
Proposition 6.1 The order of cu is infinite for all c ∈ C and all u ∈ s∞ . In
particular, a is a blowing down generator for s.
Lemma 6.2 Suppose that r ∈ J and x ∈ W are such that hr, xi is a finite subgroup
of W . Then x normalizes hJi.
Proof: As ρ and a are in V , it follows that sρ and sa are not in V and therefore
r ∈ (sρ)hJi ∪(sa)hJi is not in V because V is a normal subgroup of W . On the other
hand, r ∈ hJi = hsi×hCi which implies that there is an involution ω ∈ hCi ≤ hs⊥ i

25

such that r = sω. By our assumption, hsω, xi is a finite subgroup of W . Thus it
follows by Proposition 4.4 that [s, x] = 1 and in particular x ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
As C is an irreducible component of (h{s} ∪ s⊥ i, {s} ∪ s⊥ ) it follows that x
normalizes hCi. Now, x centralizes hsi and normalizes hCi. Thus it normalizes
hJi = hsi × hCi and we are done.

Lemma 6.3 Let 1 6= y ∈ hJi and x ∈ W be such that hy, xi is a finite group.
Then x ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i.
Proof: Let Y := P cR (y). As 1 6= y ∈ hJi and J ⊆ R, there exist w ∈ hJi and
J1 ⊆ J such that J1 6= ∅ and Y w = hJ1 i. By Corollary 2.12 the group hY, xi is a
finite group and therefore hY w , xw i is finite as well.
Let r ∈ J1 ⊆ hJ1 i = Y w . Then hr, xw i ≤ hY w , xw i is a finite group and therefore xw normalizes hJi by Lemma 6.2. As w ∈ hJi it follows that x normalizes
hJi and hence also Z(hJi) = hsi. Applying Lemma 4.1 we obtain x ∈ h{s}∪s⊥ i. 
Proof of Proposition 6.1: Let c ∈ C and u ∈ S. Then 1 6= c ∈ hJi. Thus,
if cu has finite order, then hc, ui is a finite group. By Lemma 6.3 it follows that
u ∈ h{s} ∪ s⊥ i and hence u ∈ {s} ∪ s⊥ because u ∈ S. We conclude that cu has
infinite order for all u ∈ s∞ .

7

On the Cayley graph of (W, S)

The goal of this section is to prove the following proposition.
Proposition 7.1 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system, {τ, a} ⊆ S W be such that aτ
has finite order and such that b := aτ 6= a. Let σ ∈ ha, τ i ∩ S W be such that σ 6= τ
and [τ, σ] = 1.
Suppose that (U0 , U1 , . . . , Uk ) is a sequence of subgroups of W such that the
following hold:
(i) hUi−1 , Ui i is a finite group for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k;
(ii) hUi , τ i and hUi , σi are both infinite groups for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k.
Then there exists an x ∈ {a, b} such that hUi , xi is an infinite group for all
0 ≤ i ≤ k.
Remark: Our proof of the proposition uses the Cayley graph associated with
(W, S) which is in fact the unique thin building of type (W, S). We shall apply
several basic facts about buildings in our reasoning. It is convenient to adapt the
26

language of buildings for the Cayley graph in order to be able to give references
in the literature. Thus, the vertices of the Cayley graph will be called chambers,
the edges of the Cayley graph will be called panels and right-cosets of standard
parabolic subgroups will be called residues.

Galleries and convexity in Σ(W, S)
Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system. The Coxeter complex associated with (W, S) is
defined to be the pair Σ(W, S) := (C, P) where C := W and P := {{sw, w} |
s ∈ S, w ∈ W }. The elements of C are called the chambers of Σ(W, S) and the
elements of P are called the panels of Σ(W, S).
As S generates W the graph Σ(W, S) is connected. Let c, d ∈ C. A gallery
from c to d of length m ∈ N is a sequence γ = (c = c0 , c1 , . . . , cm = d) such that
{ci−1 , ci } ∈ P for all 1 ≤ i ≤ m. The distance between c and d is the length of
a gallery joining them of minimal length; it is denoted by ℓ(c, d) and we observe
that ℓ(c, d) := ℓ(cd−1 ) where ℓ : W → N denotes the length function of (W, S).
Note that (C, ℓ) is a metric space and that therefore we have a natural notion of a
convex subset of C.

Residues in Σ(W, S)
We continue to assume that (W, S) is a Coxeter system and we let Σ(W, S) = (C, P)
be its Coxeter complex.
A subset R of C is called a residue of Σ(W, S) if there are a subset J of S and
w ∈ W such that R = hJiw. As hJ ∩ Ki = hJi ∩ hKi for all J, K ⊆ S, the set
J ⊆ W in the definition of a residue R is uniquely determined by R. This set
is called the type of R and the rank of R is defined to be the cardinality of its
type. We observe that the residues of rank 1 are precisely the panels of Σ(W, S).
A residue is called spherical if its type is spherical; hence a residue R is spherical
if and only if R is a finite set.
Lemma 7.2 Let R ⊆ C be a residue. Then R is a convex subset of (C, ℓ).
Proof: This is Proposition 3.24 in [24].



For a chamber c ∈ C and w ∈ W we put cw := cw where cw is the product in
W . In this way we get an action C × W → C, (c, w) 7→ cw which is regular on the
set of chambers and type-preserving on the set of residues.
Remark: Note that in our setup, the group W acts from the right on Σ(W, S).
Lemma 7.3 Let R ⊆ C be a residue, let J ⊆ S be its type and let w ∈ R. Let
PR := {P ∈ P | P ⊆ R}. Then the following hold:
27

(i) the stabilizer of R in W is the group w −1 hJiw;
(ii) the map x 7→ xw is an isomorphism from Σ(hJi, J) onto ΣR := (R, PR );
(iii) if |J| = 2 and E ⊆ PR has cardinality at least 3, then the graph (R, PR \ E)
has at least 3 connected components.
Proof: Assertions (i) and (ii) are straightforward. Suppose that |J| = 2
which means that hJi is a dihedral group. Then Σ(hJi, J) is isomorphic to
(Z, {{z, z + 1} | z ∈ Z}) (if |hJi| = ∞) or to a circuit of length 2k for some
2 ≤ k ∈ N (if hJi is a finite group). In both cases one verifies that removing at
least three edges produces at least three connected components and Assertion (iii)
is thus a consequence of Assertion (ii).


Walls and roots in Σ(W, S)
We continue to assume that (W, S) is a Coxeter system and we let Σ(W, S) = (C, P)
be its Coxeter complex. We recall that S W := {w −1 sw | w ∈ W, s ∈ S} is the set
of reflections of (W, S).
Lemma 7.4 Let P ∈ P. Then StabW (P ) = hti for some t ∈ S W .
Proof: This follows from Assertion (i) of Lemma 7.3 and the fact, that panels
are precisely the residues of rank 1.

Let t ∈ S W be a reflection of (W, S). The wall of t is defined to be the set Mt
of all panels stabilized by t; hence Mt := {P ∈ P | P t = P }. Furthermore, we
define the graph Σt := (C, P \ Mt ).
Lemma 7.5 Let t ∈ S W be a reflection. Then Σt has two connected components
which are interchanged by t. If u ∈ S W is a reflection distinct from t, then Mt ∩
Mu = ∅; in particular, each panel Q ∈ Mu is contained in one of the two connected
components of Σt .
Proof: This follows from Propositions 3.11 and 3.12 in [24].



Let t ∈ S W be a reflection of (W, S). The two connected components of
Σt (W, S) are called the roots associated with t. For a chamber c ∈ C we denote
the root associated to t which contains c by H(t, c); more generally, if ∅ =
6 X⊆C
is such that H(t, x) = H(t, y) for all x, y ∈ X, then we denote the unique root
associated with t containing the set X by H(t, X).

28

A root of (W, S) is a set of chambers ∅ 6= α ⊆ C such that there exists a
reflection t ∈ S W with α = H(t, α) and Φ(W, S) denotes the set of all roots of
(W, S).
Proposition 7.6 The following hold:
(i) Roots are convex subsets of (C, ℓ).
(ii) if X ⊆ C is a convex subset of (C, ℓ) then X is the intersection of all roots
containing X.
(iii) Suppose that X ⊆ C is a connected subset of Σ(W, S) and that t ∈ S W is
such that X contains no panel on the wall of t. Then there exists a root
associated with t containing X. In particular, H(t, X) is well defined.
(iv) Let R ⊆ C be a residue and let t ∈ S W be a reflection. Then t stabilizes R if
and only if there is a panel P ∈ Mt such that P ⊆ R. If this is not the case,
then R is contained in a unique root associated with t, i.e. H(t, R) is well
defined.
Proof: Assertion (i) is Proposition 3.19 in [24] Assertion (ii) is (29.20) in [25].
Let (x0 , x1 , x2 ) be path of length 2 in X. Then the panels P := {x0 , x1 } and
Q := {x1 , x2 } are not in Mt by our assumption and hence H(t, P ) and H(t, Q) is
well defined. It follows that H(t, x0 ) = H(t, P ) = H(t, x1 ) = H(t, Q) = H(t, x2 ).
By induction of the length of a path in X joining two chambers x and y in X it
follows that H(t, x) = H(t, y) for any two chambers in X. Thus Assertion (iii)
holds.
Let R ⊆ C, let J ⊆ R be its type and t ∈ S W . If there exists a panel P ∈ Mt
which is contained in R, then P is stabilized by t and since R is the unique Jresidue containing P , R is stabilized by t as well. Suppose now that R does not
contain a panel of wall of t. Since R is convex, it is connected and Assertion (iii)
yields that H(t, R) is well defined. Now H(t, Rt ) = (H(t, R))t = C \ H(t, R) and
hence Rt 6= R.

Lemma 7.7 Let t 6= u ∈ S W be such that tu = ut. Then t stabilizes both roots
associated with u.
Proof: Let P be a panel in Mt . As t 6= u and P ∈ Mt the root H(u, P ) is
well defined and we have (H(u, P ))t = H(ut , P t ) = H(u, P ). Hence t stabilizes
H(u, P ) and hence also −H(u, P ) := C \ H(u, P ).


29

Lemma 7.8 Let t ∈ S W and let R ⊆ C be a residue of rank 2. Then |{P ∈ Mt |
P ⊆ R}| ≤ 2.
Proof: Let α and −α be the two roots associated with t. As R is convex
(by Lemma 7.2) and as roots are convex (by Assertion (i) of Proposition 7.6), it
follows that R ∩ α and R ∩ −α are convex and in particular connected. Setting,
as in Lemma 7.3, PR := {P ∈ P | P ⊆ R} it follows that the graph (R, PR \ Mt )
has at most two connected components. Thus Assertion (iii) of Lemma 7.3 yields
|{P ∈ Mt | P ⊆ R}| ≤ 2 and we are done.


Projections in Σ(W, S)
We continue to assume that (W, S) is a Coxeter system and we let Σ(W, S) = (C, P)
be its Coxeter complex.
Lemma 7.9 Let R ⊆ C be a residue and c ∈ C. Then there exists a unique
chamber d ∈ R such that ℓ(c, x) = ℓ(c, d) + ℓ(d, x) for all x ∈ R.
Proof: This is Theorem 3.22 in [24].



Let R ⊆ C be a residue and c ∈ C. The unique chamber d in Lemma 7.9 is
called the projection of c onto R and it will be denoted by projR c. For any subset
X of C we put projR X := {projR x | x ∈ X}.
Lemma 7.10 Let R be a residue and t ∈ S W be such that Rt = R. Then the
following hold:
(i) H(t, c) = H(t, projRc) for each chamber c ∈ C;
(ii) projR P ∈ Mt for all P ∈ Mt .
Proof: H(t, c) is a convex set of chambers by Assertion (i) of Proposition
7.6. As Rt = R, there is a panel P ∈ Mt which is contained in R by Assertion
(iv) of Proposition 7.6 and hence there is a chamber d ∈ R ∩ H(t, c). As there is
a minimal gallery from c to d passing through projR c we have projR c ∈ H(t, c)
which yields H(t, c) = H(t, projR c) and hence Assertion (i).
Let x, y be the two chambers in P and let x′ := projR x, y ′ := projR y. Without
loss of generality we may assume that ℓ(y, y ′) ≤ ℓ(x, x′ ). Assume, by contradiction,
that ℓ(x′ , y ′) ≥ 2. Then ℓ(x, y ′) = ℓ(x, x′ ) + ℓ(x′ , y ′ ) ≥ ℓ(x, x′ ) + 2 ≥ ℓ(y, y ′) + 2 =
ℓ(y, y ′) + ℓ(x, y) + 1 > ℓ(x, y ′ ). Thus ℓ(x′ , y ′) ≤ 1. As Rt = R and xt = y, we
have x′t = y ′ 6= x′ and hence also y ′t = x′ . Thus Q := {x′ , y ′} is a panel contained
in R and stabilized by t. As Q = projR P this finishes the proof of Assertion (ii). 

30

Proposition 7.11 Let R ⊆ C be a residue of rank 2 and let t, u, v ∈ S W be
pairwise distinct reflections such that Rt = Ru = Rv = R and uv = vu. Then
there exist roots α, β ∈ Φ(W, S) such that the following holds:
(i) α is associated with u and β is associated with v;
(ii) any panel P ∈ Mt is contained in (α ∩ β) ∪ (−α ∩ −β).
If α and β are as above, then any panel in Mutu is contained in (α ∩ −β) ∪
(−α ∩ β).
Proof: As t stabilizes R there exists a panel P ∈ Mt which is contained in R.
Since u 6= t 6= v the roots α := H(u, P ) and β := H(v, P ) are well defined. Since
u 6= v and r := uv = vu it follows that r is in the center of the stabilizer of R in
W by Lemma 2.13. We have in particular rt = tr and hence r stabilizes the wall
Mt of t. As r stabilizes also the residue R, we have that Q := P r is a panel in the
wall of t which is also contained in R.
Note also that αr = (αv )u = αu = −α by Lemma 7.7, and similarly β r = −β.
As Q = P r ⊆ (α ∩ β)r = (−α) ∩ (−β) it follows in particular Q 6= P . It follows
by Lemma 7.8 that {X ∈ Mt | X ⊆ R} = {P, Q}. Let Y ∈ Mt be a panel on
the wall of t. Then, by Assertion (ii) of Lemma 7.10 we have projR Y ∈ {P, Q}.
If projR Y = P , then H(u, Y ) = H(u, P ) = α and H(v, Y ) = H(v, P ) = β
(by Assertion (i) of Lemma 7.10) and hence Y ⊆ α ∩ β. Similarly, we obtain
Y ⊆ (−α) ∩ (−β) if projR Y = Q. This finishes the proof of the first assertion.
Let P ′ := P u . As P is a panel in the wall of t we have P ′ ∈ Mutu and as u
stabilizes R and P ⊆ R, the panel P ′ is also contained in R. Now H(u, P ′) =
H(u, P u) = (H(u, P ))u = αu = −α and H(v, P ′) = H(v, P u) = (H(v u , P ))u =
(H(v, P ))u = β. It follows now from the first assertion that each panel in Mutu is
contained ((−α) ∩ β) ∪ (α ∩ (−β)) and we are done.


Finite subgroups of W
We continue to assume that (W, S) is a Coxeter system and we let Σ(W, S) = (C, P)
be its Coxeter complex.
Lemma 7.12 Let U ≤ W be a finite subgroup of W . Then U stabilizes a spherical
residue of Σ(W, S).
Proof: This follows from Lemma 2.11 and Assertion (i) of Lemma 7.3.



For a finite subgroup U ≤ W we let Sph(U) denote the set of all spherical
residues stabilized by U.
31

Lemma 7.13 Let U ≤ W be a finite subgroup and let t ∈ S W be such that hU, ti is
an infinite group. Then there exists a unique root associated with t which contains
each residue in Sph(U).
Proof: This is Lemma 2.6. in [15].



Let U ≤ W be a finite subgroup of W and t ∈ S W be such that hU, ti is
an infinite group. Then the unique root associated with t which contains each
spherical residue stabilized by U is denoted by H(t, U).
Proposition 7.14 Let t ∈ S W and (U0 , U1 , . . . , Uk ) be a sequence of subgroups
such that
• hUi−1 , Ui i is a finite group for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k;
• hUi , ti is an infinite group for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k.
Then H(t, Ui ) = H(t, Uj ) for all 0 ≤ i, j ≤ k.
Proof: We proceed by induction on k. For k = 0 the assertion is trivial and
we may assume k > 0. By induction it suffices to show that H(t, Uk−1) = H(t, Uk ).
As V := hUk−1 , Uk i is a finite subgroup of W by assumption, there exists a spherical residue R stabilized by V (by Lemma 7.12). As Uk ≤ V and hUk , ti is infinite, it follows that hV, ti is infinite and R ⊆ H(t, V ); we have in particular,
H(t, V ) = H(t, R). As Uk−1 and Uk are both subgroups of V , it follows that R is
also stabilized by these groups. Hence we have H(t, Uk−1 ) = H(t, R) = H(t, Uk ). 
Corollary 7.15 Let R ⊆ C be a residue of rank 2 and let t, u, v ∈ S W be pairwise
distinct reflections such that Rt = Ru = Rv = R and uv = vu. Let (U0 , U1 , . . . , Uk )
be a sequence of subgroups such that
• hUi−1 , Ui i is a finite group for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k;
• hUi , ui and hUi , vi are both infinite groups for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k.
Then there exists x ∈ {t, utu} such that hUi , xi is an infinite group for all
0 ≤ i ≤ k.
Proof: By Proposition 7.14 there exists a root γ associated to u such that
γ = H(u, Ui ) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k and a root δ associated to v such that δ = H(v, Ui )
for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k. Using Proposition 7.11 we see that there exists a reflection
x ∈ {t, utu} such that γ ∩ δ contains no panel of the wall Mx associated with x.
We claim that hUi , xi is an infinite group for all 0 ≤ i ≤ k.
32

Assume, by contradiction, that V := hUi , xi is a finite subgroup of W . Then
V stabilizes a spherical residue T by Lemma 7.13 and since x ∈ V , there exists
a panel P ∈ Mx which is contained in T . On the other hand, T is a spherical
residue stabilized by Ui because Ui ≤ V . Hence we have T ⊆ H(u, Ui ) = γ and
T ⊆ H(v, Ui ) = δ which yields P ⊆ γ ∩ δ. Hence there exists P ∈ Mx such that
P ⊆ γ ∩ δ which contradicts our choice of x.

Proof of Proposition 7.1: Since a, τ ∈ S W and aτ has finite order, there exists
a rank 2 residue R ⊆ C in Σ(W, S) which is stabilized by ha, τ i. By the hypothesis
of the proposition we have b := aτ 6= a, σ ∈ ha, τ i ∩ S W , σ 6= τ and [σ, τ ] = 1.
As σ ∈ ha, τ i ≤ StabW (R) we have Ra = Rτ = Rσ = R. Also, since aτ 6= a and
σ τ = σ we have that a, τ and σ are pairwise distinct. Thus, applying Corollary
7.15 with a := t, u := τ and v := σ provides the proposition.

8

The case D

Convention: Throughout this section (W, S) is a Coxeter system and s ∈ S is
a right-angled reflection of (W, S). Moreover, C ⊆ s⊥ is a s-component of type
D2k+1 , ρ is the longest element of (hCi, C) and a ∈ C is such that b := ρaρ 6= a. We
put τ := sρ and σ := absρ = abτ . Finally, R ⊆ W is a Coxeter generating set of
W and J ⊆ R is of type C2k+1 and such that hJi = hsi × hCi and J ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ ahJi
and a, τ ∈ RW .
The goal of this section is to prove the following.
Proposition 8.1 The generator a is a blowing down generator for s.
Lemma 8.2 The following hold.
(i) ab = ba 6= 1 and ab is an involution in hs⊥ i;
(ii) ρab = abρ 6= 1 and abρ is an involution in hs⊥ i;
(iii) ρs = sρ, τ is an involution, aτ = b;
(iv) σ = τ a , σ 6= τ and στ = τ σ;
(v) if u ∈ s∞ , then σu and τ u are both of infinite order;
(vi) σ ∈ RW .

33

Proof: As ρ is the longest element of (hCi, C) which is of type D2k+1 and
a ∈ C is such that b = aρ 6= a, it follows that ab = ba and as a 6= b are both
involutions, it follows that ab is an involution. As C is a spherical irreducible
component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ) and a, b ∈ C, it follows that ab ∈ hs⊥ i. This concludes
the proof of Assertion (i).
As ρ is an involution and aρ = b, we have bρ = a and hence (ab)ρ = ba = ab
where the last equality follows from Assertion (i). Thus ab and ρ are commuting
involutions which shows that (ρab)2 = 1; As (hCi, C) is of type D2k+1 with 1 ≤ k,
it follows that the length of ρ with respect to the generator set C is 2k(2k + 1) ≥ 6.
On the other hand we have the length of ab with respect to C is 2 because a 6= b ∈ C
and therefore ρ 6= ab which shows that abρ is an involution. As ρ, a, b ∈ hCi and
C is an irreducible spherical component of (hs⊥ i, s⊥ ), it follows that abρ ∈ hs⊥ i.
This concludes the proof of Assertion (ii).
As ρ ∈ hs⊥ i and s 6∈ hs⊥ i it follows that s 6= ρ and sρ = ρs. As s and ρ are
both involutions, τ = sρ is an involution as well. As a ∈ s⊥ we have [a, s] = 1. It
follows aτ = τ aτ = (sρ)a(sρ) = aρ = b which finishes (iii).
We have τ a = (sρ)a = asρa = saρa = sρ(ρaρ)a = sρaρ a = sρba = σ, since
we have already established [a, s] = [ρ, s] = [a, b] = 1 in the previous parts of
this proof. We have also τ s = s(sρ)s = ρs = sρ = τ . Assume by contradiction
that τ = σ. Then sρab = sρ and hence ab = 1 implying a = b which yields a
contradiction. Finally, since [a, s] = [b, s] = [ab, ρ] = 1 we have στ = sρabsρ =
sρs(ab)ρ = sρsρab = τ σ and we are done with (iv).
We first remark that ρ and ρab are both involutions in hs⊥ i by Assertion (ii).
As τ = sρ and σ = sρab, Assertion (v) follows from Corollary 4.5.
Finally, Assertion (vi) follows from Assertion (iv) of the Lemma.

Proposition 8.3 Let (u0 , u1 , . . . , un ) be a sequence in s∞ such that ui−1 ui has
finite order for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. There exists x ∈ {a, b} such that xui has infinite
order for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Proof: We have {τ, a} ⊆ RW . Moreover aτ has finite order since a and τ are
both contained in the finite subgroup hJi. We have also b = aτ 6= a and Assertion
(iv) of Lemma 8.2 yields σ = τ a and hence σ ∈ hτ, ai ∩ RW by Assertion (vi) of
Lemma 8.2. By Assertion (iv) of Lemma 8.2 we have σ 6= τ and [τ, σ] = 1.
Let Ui := hui i for 0 ≤ i ≤ n. Then hUi−1 , Ui i = hui−1, ui i is a finite group for
1 ≤ i ≤ n because the ui are involutions and ui−1 ui has finite order by hypothesis.
Finally, Assertion (v) of Lemma 8.2 yields that hτ, Ui i and hσ, Ui i are infinite
groups for 0 ≤ i ≤ n because ui ∈ s∞ .
We are now in the position to apply Proposition 7.1 with S := R. It asserts
that there is an element x ∈ {a, b} such that hx, Ui i is an infinite group for all
34

0 ≤ i ≤ n. As Ui = hui i with an involution ui for 0 ≤ i ≤ n it follows that there
exists an x ∈ {a, b} such that xui has infinite order for 0 ≤ i ≤ n.

Proof of Proposition 8.1: The generator a satisfies Axiom (BDG1) by the
general assumptions of this section and Proposition 8.3 yields that a satisfies Axiom
(BDG2) as well.

9

The case I

Convention: Throughout this section (W, S) is a Coxeter system, s ∈ S is a
right-angled reflection of (W, S). Moreover, C = {a, b} ⊆ s⊥ is a s-component of
type I2 (2k + 1), ρ is the longest element of (hCi, C) and τ := sρ. Finally, R ⊆ W
is a Coxeter generating set of W and J ⊆ R is of type I2 (4k + 2) and such that
hJi = hsi × hCi and J ⊆ (sρ)hJi ∪ ahJi and a, τ ∈ RW .
The goal of this section is to prove the following.
Proposition 9.1 The generator a is a blowing down generator for s.
Similarly as in the case D, the proof of this proposition consists essentially of
checking the conditions of Proposition 7.1. However, in the I2 -case there is an
additional difficulty which requires some extra work. It is the proof of Lemma 9.8
where we need an additional argument with respect to the D-case. This lemma
could be established at much lesser cost if we would exclude the case k = 1.

Coxeter systems and F A-groups
The following definition is due to Serre (see Paragraph 6.1 in [22]):
Definition: A group G is called an F A-group if it satisfies the following condition:
(FA) If G acts without inversion on a non-empty tree T = (V, E), then G fixes a
vertex v ∈ V .
Lemma 9.2 Finite groups are F A-groups.
Proof: This is a special case of Example 6.3.1 in [22].



Definition: Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of finite rank. A subset J of S is
called 2-spherical if st has finite order for all s, t ∈ J. A parabolic subgroup P of
(W, S) is called 2-spherical, if P = hJiw for some 2-spherical subset of S and some
w ∈ W.
The following result is due to Mihalik and Tschantz.
35

Proposition 9.3 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of finite rank. Then the following hold:
(i) If J ⊆ S is 2-spherical, then hJi is a F A-group.
(ii) If U ≤ W is a finitely generated F A-group, then P cS (U) is 2-spherical.
Proof: Assertion (i) is Proposition 24 and Assertion (ii) is Lemma 25 in [13].

Corollary 9.4 Let W be a Coxeter group and let S ⊆ W and R ⊆ W be Coxeter
generating sets. Let J ⊂ S be a finite 2-spherical subset of S and let s ∈ S be such
that s ∈ P cR (hJi). Then J ∪ {s} is also a 2-spherical subset of S.
Proof: As J is finite and 2-spherical, hJi is a finitely generated F A-group. By
Assertion (ii) of Proposition 9.3 P := P cR (hJi) is a 2-spherical parabolic subgroup
of (W, R). (Note that P = P cR′ (hJi) for a finite subset R′ of R, since J is finite.)
It is of finite rank and in particular a finitely generated F A-group. Moreover,
s ∈ P by assumption. Again by Assertion (ii) of Proposition 9.3 Q := P cS (P ) is
a 2-spherical parabolic subgroup of (W, S) containing h{s} ∪ Ji. Thus there exists
a 2-spherical subset K of S and an element w ∈ W such that ({s} ∪ J)w ≤ hKi.
Hence, by Assertion (ii) of Proposition 2.7 {s} ∪ J is a 2-spherical subset of S. 

Finite paths in s∞
Lemma 9.5 We have b = aτ , hJi = ha, τ i, ρ 6= τ 6= a 6= ρ ∈ RW ∩ hJi and
[τ, ρ] = 1.
Proof: As a, b ∈ s⊥ and τ = sρ we have aτ = asρ = aρ = b where the
last equality follows from the fact that ρ is the longest element of the system
(ha, bi, {a, b}) which is of type I2 (2k + 1).
As, a and ρ are in hCi and τ = sρ it follows that ha, τ i ≤ hsi × hCi = hJi.
On the other hand, b = aτ ∈ ha, τ i which implies that hCi ≤ ha, τ i. We have
in particular, ρ ∈ ha, τ i and therefore also s = τ ρ ∈ ha, τ i which implies that
hJi = hsi × hCi ≤ ha, τ i which finishes the proof of the second equation. As
b = aτ it follows that b ∈ hJi ∩ RW and in particular that ρ ∈ ha, bi ≤ hJi. As
(ha, bi, {a, b}) is of type I2 (2k + 1) and ρ is its longest element, it follows that
ρ ∈ aW and hence ρ ∈ hJi ∩ RW . As aτ = b 6= a it follows that a 6= τ and as
τ ρ = s and ρ2 = 1 it follows that τ 6= ρ. Finally, as ρ is the longest element of
the system (ha, bi, {a, b}), it follows that a 6= ρ. As τ ∈ R we have τ 2 = 1 and as
aτ = b we have bτ = a. It follows that τ normalizes {a, b} and hence centralizes
36

the longest element of the system (ha, bi, {a, b}) which is ρ.



Lemma 9.6 We have P cR (ha, bi) = hJi and in particular s ∈ P cR (ha, bi).
Proof: As ha, bi = hCi ≤ hJi, the group P cR (ha, bi) is a parabolic subgroup
of (W, R) contained in hJi and hJi is a parabolic subgroup of (W, R) of rank 2. As
the order of parabolic subgroup of rank one is 2 and the order of ha, bi is 4k+2, it
follows that P cR (ha, bi) = hJi.

Lemma 9.7 Let u ∈ S \ {a, b, s} be such that au and bu have finite order. Then
u ∈ s⊥ .
Proof: By the previous lemma we have s ∈ P cR (ha, bi) As au and bu are of
finite order the set K := {a, b, u} is a 2-spherical subset of S. Thus we can apply
Corollary 9.4 to see that {s} ∪ K is 2-spherical. As s is a right-angled generator
it follows [s, u] = 1.

Lemma 9.8 Let u ∈ s∞ . Then at least one of the elements ua and ub has infinite
order.
Proof: This follows from Lemma 9.7.



Lemma 9.9 For each u ∈ s∞ the orders of uτ and uρ are infinite.
Proof: We have a, b ∈ s⊥ and therefore ρ ∈ ha, bi is an involution contained
in hs⊥ i. By Corollary 4.5 it follows that τ u = (sρ)u has infinite order for each
u ∈ s∞ .
We have a, b, u ∈ S and by Lemma 9.8 we know at least one of the elements au
and bu has infinite order. As ρ is the longest element in the system (ha, bi, {a, b}),
one verifies using the geometric representation (or the solution of the word problem in Coxeter groups) that the order of ρu is also infinite.

Proposition 9.10 Let (u0, u1 , . . . , un ) be a sequence in s∞ such that ui−1 ui has
finite order for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. There exists x ∈ {a, b} such that xui has infinite
order for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Proof: We have {τ, a} ⊆ RW . Moreover the order of aτ is finite since a and
τ are both contained in the finite subgroup hJi. We have also b = aτ 6= a. By
Lemma 9.5 we have also ρ ∈ hJi ∩ RW and [τ, ρ] = 1.
37

Let Ui := hui i for 0 ≤ i ≤ n. Then hUi−1 , Ui i = hui−1, ui i is a finite group for
1 ≤ i ≤ n because the ui are involutions and ui−1 ui has finite order by hypothesis.
Moreover, Lemma 9.9 yields that hτ, Ui i and hρ, Ui i are infinite groups for 0 ≤ i ≤ n
because ui ∈ s∞ .
We are now in the position to apply Proposition 7.1 with S := R and σ := ρ.
It asserts that there is an element x ∈ {a, b} such that hx, Ui i is an infinite group
for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n. As Ui = hui i with an involution ui for 0 ≤ i ≤ n it follows that
there exists an x ∈ {a, b} such that xui has infinite order for 0 ≤ i ≤ n.

Proof of Proposition 9.1: The generator a satisfies Axiom (BDG1) by the
general assumptions of this section and Proposition 9.10 yields that a satisfies
Axiom (BDG2) as well.

10

Proof of the main result

We first recall the Proposition of the introduction.
Proposition 10.1 Let (W, S) be a Coxeter system of arbitrary rank and let s ∈ S
be a right-angled generator such that each s-component has trivial center. If there
exists a Coxeter generating set T of W such that s is not a reflection of (W, T ),
then there exists a blowing down generator for s.
Proof: In view of the hypothesis of the Proposition we are in the position
to apply Proposition 5.1. Thus, there is a Coxeter generating set R of W , an
irreducible subset J of R of (−1)-type and a s-component C such that we are in
one of the cases I, D or D̄ described in Proposition 5.1. If we are in case I, (resp.
D,D̄) Proposition 9.1 (resp. 8.1, 6.1) asserts that there exists a blowing down
generator for s.

The first assertion of the main result follows from Propositions 4.11 and 10.1. The
second assertion follows from Lemma 4.3 applied to the Coxeter system (W, R).

References
[1] N. Brady, J. McCammond, B. Mühlherr and W. Neumann: Rigidity
of Coxeter groups and Artin groups, Geom. Dedicata 94 (2002), 63–80.
[2] B. Brink, R. Howlett: Normalizers of parabolic subgroups in Coxeter
groups, Inv. math. 136 (1999), 323–351.
38

[3] P.-E. Caprace, P. Przytycki: Twist-rigid Coxeter groups, Geometry
and Topology 14 (2010), 2243–2275.
[4] A. Castella: Sur les automorphismes et la rigidité des groupes de Coxeter
à angles droits, J. Alg. 301 (2006), 642–669.
[5] V. Deodhar: A note on subgroups generated by reflections in Coxeter
groups, Arch. Math. 53 (1989), 543–546.
[6] M. Dyer: Reflection Subgroups of Coxeter Systems, J. Alg. 135 (1990),
57–73.
[7] W. Franzsen, R. Howlett: Automorphisms of nearly finite Coxeter
groups, Adv. Geom. 3 (2003), 301–338.
[8] W. Franzsen, R. Howlett: Automorphisms of Coxeter groups of rank
three, Proc. AMS 129 (2001), 2607–2616.
[9] W. Franzsen, R. Howlett, B. Mühlherr: Reflections in abstract
Coxeter groups, Comment. Math. Helv. 81 (2006), 665–697.
[10] J. Humphreys: Reflection Groups and Coxeter Groups, Cambridge studies
in advanced mathematics 29, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
[11] D. Krammer: The conjugacy problem for Coxeter groups, Groups Geom.
Dyn. 3 (2009),71–171.
[12] M. Mihalik, J. Ratcliffe: On the rank of a Coxeter group, J. Group
Theory 12 (2009), 449–646.
[13] M. Mihalik, S.Tschantz: Visual decompositions of Coxeter groups,
Groups Geom. Dyn. 3 (2009), 173–198.
[14] B. Mühlherr: The isomorphism problem for Coxeter groups, in The Coxeter Legacy, (C. Davis, E.W. Ellers, editors), Amer. Math. Soc. (2006), 1–15.
[15] B. Mühlherr, R. Weidmann: Rigidity of skew-angled Coxeter groups,
Adv. Geom. 2 (2002), 391–415.
[16] D.J.S Robinson: A course in the theory of groups, GTM, Springer, New
York, 1995.
[17] K. Nuida: Locally parabolic subgroups in Coxeter groups of arbitrary ranks,
J. Alg. 350 (2012), 207–217.

39

[18] K. Nuida: On the isomorphism problem for Coxeter groups and related
topics. in Groups of exceptional type, Coxeter groups and related geometries
N. Sastry, editor), Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 82, Springer, New Delhi, 2014,
, 217-238.
[19] L. Paris: Irreducible Coxeter groups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 17
(2007), 427–447.
[20] M. Ronan: Lectures on buildings., Academic Press, 1989.
[21] D. Qi: A note on parabolic subgroups of a Coxeter group, Expo. Math. 25
(2007), 77–81.
[22] J.-P. Serre: Trees, Springer, Heidelberg, 1980.
[23] J. Tits: Sur le groupe d’automorphismes de certains groupes de Coxeter. J.
Alg. 113 (1988), 346–357.
[24] R. Weiss: The Structure of Spherical Buildings, Princeton University Press,
Princeton and Oxford, 2003.
[25] R. Weiss: The Structure of Affine Buildings, Annals of Mathematics Studies
168, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, 2009.

40

