3
$\begingroup$

In his article, Abderezak Ould Houcine asks the following question: If $G$ is a hyperbolic group, let $\delta_0(G)$ denote the infinimum of $\delta$ for which $G$ is $\delta$-hyperbolic. When $\delta_0(G)=0$?

Of course, free groups are such groups. But are they other ones?

If $\Gamma$ is a (Cayley) graph and $C$ a cycle of minimum length $\ell$, then taking three points $x,y,z \in C$ satisfying $d(x,y)=d(y,z)=d(z,x)= \ell/3$, the triangle induced by $C$ is geodesic and it is clearly not $0$-thin. So it seems that the only $0$-hyperbolic graphs are trees, and consequently, the only $0$-hyperbolic groups would be free.

Am I missing something? Do you have an example of non-free $0$-hyperbolic group?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The only comment I have is that the minimum length of a cycle need not be equal to $1$; but your argument should work with any cycle length. Otherwise, looks good to me. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Aug 1 '14 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, it was not $1$ but $\mathrm{l}$. It is clearer if I write $\ell$, sorry. $\endgroup$ – Seirios Aug 2 '14 at 6:21
3
$\begingroup$

If a graph is not a tree, then it contains a shortest contactible loop, which is an isometric image of a circle. A circle of length $L$ has $\delta\ge L/4$ (using the $4$-point form of hyperbolicity, with $x,z,y,v$ placed at equal distances around the circle). So yes, a $0$-hyperbolic graph is a tree. And if it's the Cayley graph of a group, the group is free.

It's possible that the remark was really intended for the metric $\ell_S$ considered in the paper later; this metric is defined only on the set of vertices, which seems to allow non-free groups to have $0$-hyperbolicity in this metric.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

As noted by just a brick in the wall, the answer depends on the definition of $\delta$-hyperbolicity: if it is defined with respect to the geometric realization of a Cayley graph (ie. a 1-complex), then free groups are the only $0$-hyperbolic groups; if it is defined with respect to the set of vertices of a Cayley graph, the answer does not seem to be so trivial.

To complete the previous answer, I just mention that $\mathbb{Z}_2 \ast \mathbb{Z}_3$ is a $0$-hyperbolic group for the second definition above. Its Cayley graph with respect to the usual generating set is roughly:

enter image description here

Let $x,y,z,w$ be three vertices. If the union of geodesics between each pair of points does not contain a triangle, then the $4$-point form of hyperbolicity holds since we are essentially in a subtree. Otherwise, we are in the situation as illustrated below:

enter image description here

Now, we easily check that $$d(y,w)+d(x,z) =d(x,a)+d(a,z)+d(y,b)+d(b,w)= d(y,z)+d(x,w),$$ so that the $4$-point form of hyperbolicity holds too.

EDIT: Another argument is to isometrically embed the 0-squeleton of the Cayley graph above into the following tree:

enter image description here

(Blue edges have length 1/2.)

$\endgroup$

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.