2
$\begingroup$

Suppose we are given $a, b \in F_2$, that happen to generate it. Then must they be free generators? That is, there is no non-trivial reduced word on $a^{\pm 1}, b^{\pm 1}$ defining the identity. Equivalently, $a, b$ satisfy the universal property defining $F_2$.

I tried attacking this the first way: suppose $u$ and $v$ are free generators, then if I take a word on $a$ and $b$ I can rewrite it in terms of $u$ and $v$. But how do I know that if I took a non-trivial reduced word on $a, b$ defining the identity, it does not become trivial after reduction with $u$ and $v$?

I also tried to use the universal property. Then we get that if $a$ and $b$ are not free, $F_2$ is isomorphic to one of its propert quotients. Maybe this is not the case for $F_2$ specifically, but it may be for other groups, so no contradiction in sight once again.

I know this is true because it is used in a class I am taking. To prove that $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ is not free, the professor just exhibited two generators and a non-trivial relation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you give an example of non-free generators? $\endgroup$ – freakish Jun 26 '18 at 8:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ $a, b, a^{-1}$ are non-free generators. The claim is that you cannot have two non-free generators... $\endgroup$ – frafour Jun 26 '18 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I assume these generators are non-free because $a^{-1}$ is evaluable from $a$. So if I remove $a^{-1}$ I still get generators. So is the set of free generators the same as the minimal set of generators? Then obviously $\mathbb{F}_2$ cannot have a minimal set of generators with only 1 element. Otherwise it would be $\mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$ – freakish Jun 26 '18 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ @freakish: They are non-free because there is a nontrivial word in three letters that reduces to the identity when you plug in $a, b, a^{-1}$ for the three letters. $\endgroup$ – Hurkyl Jun 26 '18 at 9:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl Yes, then I'm asking what's the difference between "non-free" and "minimal"? $\endgroup$ – freakish Jun 26 '18 at 9:04
3
$\begingroup$

Your question is equivalent to the following:

Is every surjective group homomorphism $F_2 \to F_2$ necessarily injective?

Groups with this property are called Hopfian groups: see the Wikipedia article .

In particular, it is stated that $F_n$ is Hopfian for all $n$: proof.

Thus, the answer to your question is yes: every set of 2 generators of $F_2$ is free.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wait, the linked proof shows that $F_n$ is residually finite, but how do we know that finitely generated residually finite groups are Hopfian? $\endgroup$ – Vincent Jun 26 '18 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Vincent sorry, I pasted the wrong link. Thanks for having alerted me. $\endgroup$ – Crostul Jun 26 '18 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ Just went through the proof, very clear. Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – frafour Jun 26 '18 at 9:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ math.stackexchange.com/questions/2447820/… $\endgroup$ – Crostul Jun 26 '18 at 9:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As you see, this is not specific to $n=2$. However there's a more specific fact for pairs: in a free group, any two elements freely generate a free group, unless they commute (which is easily checkable, and actually holds iff they have a common root). $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 26 '18 at 16:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.