Restricted universal groups for right-angled buildings

This follows immediately from the definition.

This is [silva1, Proposition 3.15].

This is [bossaert, Proposition 3.1].

We refer to [caprace2014, Lemma 2.5, Proposition 2.8 and Corollary 2.9].

This is [bossaert, Lemma 3.7].

See [silva1, Lemmas 2.9 and 2.10]; see also ? below.

This is [silva1, Lemma 2.11].

Assume that d and d' are two distinct chambers in C that minimize the distance to c. Let \gamma be the minimal gallery that joins d and d' and is concave with respect to c (as in Proposition 3.3). By convexity of C and concavity of \gamma, every chamber on \gamma is a chamber in C at the same distance to c as d and d'. We may thus assume that d and d' are i-adjacent for some i\in I. Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be the i-panel containing d and d'; by assumption, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} \subseteq C. Now let c'=\operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(c); then \operatorname{dist}(c,c')<\operatorname{dist}(c,d), while c'\in C. This is a contradiction, showing that there is a unique chamber d\in C closest to c.

For the gate property, we use induction on \operatorname{dist}(c,C). If c\in C, then there is nothing to show. Now assume \operatorname{dist}(c,C)\geq 1 and let c'\in\Delta and i\in I be such that \operatorname{dist}(c',C)<\operatorname{dist}(c,C) and c'\sim_i c. Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}=\ensuremath\mathcal{P}_i(c). Then by construction, \operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(d)=c' and there exists a minimal gallery \gamma from c' to e through d by the induction hypothesis. Minimality yields that also \operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(e)=c'. Hence \operatorname{dist}(c,e)>\operatorname{dist}(c',e) and the gallery obtained by prepending c\sim_i c' to \gamma is again minimal.

Let c \in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} \cap \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C). Since every other chamber in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is adjacent to c, we already have \ensuremath\mathcal{P} \subseteq \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C) \cup \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C).

Assume that there is a second chamber d \in \ensuremath\mathcal{P}\cap\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C) with d \neq c. If \operatorname{proj}_C(c)=\operatorname{proj}_C(d) =: e, then \operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(e) will be a chamber in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n-1}(C) (because of the gate property applied to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}), contradicting the minimality of n. Hence we must have \operatorname{proj}_C(c)\neq\operatorname{proj}_C(d). Those projections are i-adjacent; let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' be the i-panel through them. By Proposition 2.8?, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} and \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' are parallel, and since C is panel-closed, we have \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' \subseteq C. In particular, all chambers in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} are at the same distance from C, so \ensuremath\mathcal{P}\subseteq\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C).

Assume now that c is the only chamber in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} \cap \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C), so that all its other chambers lie in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C). Since not all chambers of \ensuremath\mathcal{P} lie at the same distance from C, the panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P} can certainly not be parallel to any panel in C. In particular, Proposition 2.8? now implies that all chambers in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} must have the same projection on C.

1. By Lemma 3.7, the chambers c_1, c_2 and c_3 all have the same projection on C. We can thus immediately apply Lemma 3.2?.

2. By Lemma 3.7, the chambers c_2 and c_3 have the same projection c on C. Let d := \operatorname{proj}_C(c_1). If also d = c, then we can apply Lemma 3.2?. If d \neq c, then the i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P} through c_1 and c_2 is parallel to the i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' through c and d, which is contained in C because C is panel-closed. By Proposition 2.8?, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} and \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' are contained in a common residue of type i \cup i^\perp. In particular, the minimal gallery from c_2 to c through c_3 is of this type, hence j \in i^\perp.

   Since ij = ji, there exists a chamber d \in \Delta with c_1 \sim_j d \sim_i c_3. Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}'' be the i-panel containing d and c_3. By construction, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}'' is parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}, but since parallelism is an equivalence relation (Proposition 2.8?), this implies that \ensuremath\mathcal{P}'' and \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' \subseteq C are also parallel. Since \operatorname{dist}(C,c_3)=n, this implies that also \operatorname{dist}(C,d)=n, and we have found the required configuration.

The proof from [silva1, Lemma 2.11] for the case C = \{ c \} only relies on the closing squares lemmas. By Lemma 3.8, the proof carries over mutatis mutandis to the case where C is any panel-closed subset of \Delta.

This is [silva1, Lemma 2.15].

By Proposition 3.9, there is a minimal gallery \gamma = (d', e, \dots, d) from d' to d that is concave with respect to C. By concavity, either e \in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C), or all chambers of \gamma lie in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C). If e \in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C), then the result already follows from Lemma 3.8? applied on c' \sim_i d' \sim_j e.

Assume now that all chambers of \gamma lie in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C). We will show by induction on \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}) that d is contained in an i-panel parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}. Of course, this is obvious if \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}) = 0, so assume \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}) \geq 1, so that e really exists. (If \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P})= 1, we set e=d.) We can now apply Lemma 3.8? on e \sim_j d' \sim_i c' to get m_{ij} = 2 and to find a chamber e' \in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C) with e' \sim_i e. In particular, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is parallel to the i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' through e and e', and \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}') = \operatorname{dist}(d, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}) - 1. We have \operatorname{proj}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}'}(d) = e, and the subgallery \gamma' = (e,\dots,d) of \gamma is still a concave gallery completely contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C). Hence we can apply the induction hypothesis to find that d is contained in an i-panel parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}'. Since parallelism is an equivalence relation, the result follows.

We will recursively construct a sequence of elements g_n \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) such that \mathchoice{{g_n\bigr\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}=\mathchoice{{h\bigr\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{h\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{h\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{h\rvert_{C}^{}}} for all n, such that property (ii) holds for all panels \ensuremath\mathcal{P} contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C), and such that g_n and g_m agree on the ball \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_m(C) whenever m<n. Note that g_n maps chambers in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C) to harmonious chambers. For n=0, take g_0=g.

Now assume that n\geq 0 and that we have constructed g_n with all the required properties. In order to define g_{n+1}, we will construct an automorphism h_n that stabilizes \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(g_n\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax C) pointwise and that fixes the mismatching local actions at \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(g_n\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax C) — we can then set g_{n+1}=h_n\circ g_n. Already let C'=g_n\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax C=g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax C.

For convenience, we will call a panel n-defective if it intersects both \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C) and \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C) and it does not satisfy property (ii) with respect to g_n. Explicitly, if an i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is n-defective, then the local action \sigma_\lambda(g_n,\ensuremath\mathcal{P})\notin F_i and \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is not parallel to any panel contained in C. Observe that, if property (ii) holds for some panel, then it holds for every parallel panel as well, since parallelism is transitive and local actions on parallel panels agree. This implies that an n-defective panel cannot be parallel to any panel in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C).

Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be an n-defective i-panel. By Lemma 3.7, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} intersects \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_n(C) in a single chamber c. Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}'=g_n\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{P} and c' = g_n\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c. By the induction hypothesis, c and c' are harmonious. Hence we can find a permutation f_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\in F_i such that f_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\lambda_i(c)=\lambda_i(c'), and a permutation \pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} of the chambers in \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' that makes the diagram below commute.

By [caprace2014, Proposition 4.2], \pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} extends to an automorphism \widetilde\pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) that fixes all chambers whose projection onto \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is fixed by \pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}. Note that \pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} fixes c' by construction. Consider d\in\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_{n+1}(C')\setminus\ensuremath\mathcal{P}' and denote d'=\operatorname{proj}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}'}(d). If \operatorname{dist}(d',C')=n, or in other words if c'=d', then d' is fixed by \pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} and d is fixed by \widetilde\pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}. Otherwise \operatorname{dist}(d',C')=n+1. By Lemma 3.11, \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is parallel either to the i-panel containing d, or to an i-panel contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C'). However, we have excluded the latter possibility by assuming that \ensuremath\mathcal{P} violates property (ii).

We have thus constructed, for every n-defective panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P}, an automorphism \widetilde\pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} of the building with the property that all chambers of \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_{n+1}(C') that are moved by \widetilde\pi_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} are contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C')\cap\ensuremath\mathcal{R}, with \ensuremath\mathcal{R} the set of all chambers in a panel parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' (in other words, the residue of type i\cup i^\perp containing \ensuremath\mathcal{P}').

Next, we claim that no chamber in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C') lies in more than one n-defective panel. Indeed, suppose that c_1\sim_i d\sim_j c_2 with d\in\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{S}}_{n+1}(C') and c_1,c_2\in\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C'). Then by Lemma 3.8?, the i-panel (and also the j-panel) through d is parallel to a panel in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C'), so that it cannot be n-defective.

We now define

where the product runs over any set of arbitrarily chosen representatives of all equivalence classes of parallel n-defective panels, in an arbitrary order. Note that h_n leaves invariant the set \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C'), since all factors do. In particular, the automorphism g_{n+1}=h_n\circ g_n satisfies \mathchoice{{g_{n+1}\bigr\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_{n+1}\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_{n+1}\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_{n+1}\rvert_{C}^{}}}=\mathchoice{{g_n\bigr\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g_n\rvert_{C}^{}}}=\mathchoice{{g\bigr\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g\rvert_{C}^{}}}{{g\rvert_{C}^{}}}.

Moreover, let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be any panel contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_{n+1}(C). If \ensuremath\mathcal{P}\subseteq\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C), then property (ii) holds by the induction hypothesis. If \ensuremath\mathcal{P}\subseteq\ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_{n+1}(C), then \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is parallel to some panel contained in \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C) and again property (ii) holds by induction. It only remains to verify that property (ii) is valid for an n-defective panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P} with respect to g_{n+1}. Let \widetilde\ensuremath\mathcal{P} be the representative of \ensuremath\mathcal{P} in the class of parallel n-defective panels. Then

Finally, by construction, g_{n+1} agrees with g_n on the ball \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(C). The sequence of automorphisms g_0,g_1,g_2,\ldots thus obtained, converges to an automorphism satisfying the desired properties.

Since the i-panels in a residue of type \{i,j\} with m_{ij}=2 are parallel, this follows immediately from Proposition 2.9.

Since the rungs of a ladder are parallel, this follows immediately from Proposition 2.9.

Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' be a panel such that \operatorname{dist}(\ensuremath\mathcal{P},\ensuremath\mathcal{P}') \geq |I|. Let c\in \ensuremath\mathcal{P} and let c'=\operatorname{proj}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}'}(c). A minimal gallery \gamma from c to c' has only types in i^\perp (by Proposition 2.8) and has length \operatorname{dist}(\ensuremath\mathcal{P},\ensuremath\mathcal{P}') > |i^\perp|. By the pigeonhole principle, there is a type j\in i^\perp that occurs at least twice in the type of \gamma. In between, there must exist a type k\in i^\perp in \gamma such that m_{jk}=\infty, since the type of \gamma is a reduced word. Hence, we have found three types \{i,j,k\} satisfying m_{ij}=m_{ik}=2 and m_{jk}=\infty, i.e., the i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is the rung of at least one ladder in \Delta.

Since M is ladderful, every panel of \Delta is the rung of some ladder in \Delta. By Lemma 4.5, this implies that an element g \in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) cannot have any singularities at all. Hence \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}).

Assume that \sigma = \sigma_\lambda(g,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}) is not contained in \widehat F_i, so there exists a color x\in\Omega_i such that x and \sigma\!\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x are contained in different F_i-orbits. Let c\in\ensuremath\mathcal{P} be such that \lambda_i(c)=x, let j\neq i, and let d be any chamber j-adjacent to c. Since \lambda_i(c)=\lambda_i(d) and \lambda_i(g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c)=\lambda_i(g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax d), the i-panel containing d is again a singularity. As there are only finitely many singularities, this implies that the parameter q_j is finite, for every j\neq i.

Next, we claim that both orbits F_i\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x and F_i\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax(\sigma\!\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x) are infinite. Assume by means of contradiction that X = F_i\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x is finite. Since \sigma is a permutation and x\in X with \sigma\!\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x\notin X, there exists a color y\notin X with \sigma\!\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax y\in X. Let c'\in\ensuremath\mathcal{P} be such that \lambda_i(c')=y and note that c\neq c'. Since i is not an isolated node in the diagram, there exists some k\in I with m_{ik}=\infty; choose d\sim_k c'. Since \lambda_i(d) = \lambda_i(c') = y and \lambda_i(g \mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax d) = \lambda_i(g \mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c') = \sigma \mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax y are in different F_i-orbits, the local action at the i-panels containing d is again a permutation not contained in \widehat F_i. We can thus repeat this construction to obtain an infinite chain

every chamber of which lies in a singularity of type i. This contradiction shows that the orbit F_i\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x cannot be finite. Similarly, F_i\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax(\sigma\!\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax x) cannot be finite.

This follows immediately from Proposition 4.9.

1. If m=0, then \Delta is a finite building so that all panels can be singularities at the same time, hence \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}).

2. If m=1, then \Delta is isomorphic to the direct product of an infinite building \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J with a finite building \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K. Then, viewing the chambers of \Delta as pairs of chambers in \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J and \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K, we can identify \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) with a subgroup H of \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}) \times \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}). Since \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K is finite, each potential singularity \ensuremath\mathcal{P} in \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J corresponds to finitely many panels in \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J \times \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K, hence \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}},\,\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}) \times 1 is contained in H. It is obvious that also 1 \times \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}) \leq H, so we already get

   \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}},\,\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}) \times \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}) \leq H .

   Conversely, if g \in H, then no panel of \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K can be a singularity for g in \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J \times \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K because \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J is infinite (or because it is contained in a ladder of \Delta), so the restriction of g to \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K is contained in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_K}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{K}^{}}}). It is obvious that the restriction of g to \ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J is contained in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{\ensuremath\mathcal{R}_J}(\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}},\,\mathchoice{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\bigr\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}{{\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}\rvert_{J}^{}}}), and the conclusion follows.

3. If m=2, then the diagram M is ladderful, so by Lemma 4.5, we have \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). It follows that

   \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) \cap \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) \cap \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) . \qedhere

For each i\in I, the orbits of the local groups F_i and \acute F_i agree. By Proposition 2.6, the same is true for the orbits of \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) and \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) on \Delta. Since \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{})\leq\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{})\leq\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}), the result now follows from the same Proposition 2.6.

The permutation f \in \acute F_i corresponds to a permutation \tilde f \in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(\acute F_i). By Proposition 2.4, \tilde f extends to an automorphism h \in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_\Delta(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). We can now apply Proposition 3.12 with C = \ensuremath\mathcal{P} as the convex panel-closed set to find the required g \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) satisfying all three conditions. (Recall that by Proposition 2.9, condition ? is automatically satisfied.)

In particular, g \in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). Moreover, if \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is not the rung of a ladder in \Delta, then by Proposition 4.6, the set of panels parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is bounded and hence finite (because \Delta is locally finite); it then follows that g\in\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}).

? is a special case of Proposition 3.12. By Proposition 2.9, ? now follows from ?.

Let g\in\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). We proceed by induction on the number |S(g)| of singularities. Of course, if S(g)=\emptyset then g\in\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) and there is nothing to show, so assume that \lvert S(g) \rvert \geq 1 and let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be a singularity of type i. By Lemma 4.5, \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is not a rung in \Delta.

By definition of \ensuremath\mathscr{H}, there is an i-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P}_0\in\ensuremath\mathscr{H} such that \ensuremath\mathcal{P} and \ensuremath\mathcal{P}_0 are harmonious. By Proposition 2.6, Proposition 5.2, there is thus an automorphism h\in\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) such that h\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{P}=\ensuremath\mathcal{P}_0. By Proposition 2.4 applied on the residue \ensuremath\mathcal{P}, we can assume that the local action of h at \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is the identity. Next, let \sigma = \sigma_\lambda(g,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}). Using Lemma 5.5 we can find an automorphism h_0\in K_{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}_0} satisfying \sigma_\lambda(h_0,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}_0)=\sigma^{-1}. Finally, let h' := h^{-1}\cdot h_0\cdot h \in K_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}.

Consider the automorphism g' = g\cdot h'. By construction (see diagram), the local action of g' at \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is the identity. In particular, g' does not have singularities parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}.

Now let \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' be any other panel that is not parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P}; then h'\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is not parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P} either. Since

where the second factor is known to be a permutation in F_i, we find that \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is a singularity of g' if and only if h'\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is a singularity of g.

In other words, the number of singularities not parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P} is identical for g and g'; however, by the previous paragraph, g has singularities parallel to \ensuremath\mathcal{P} whereas g' has none. This implies that g' has strictly less singularities than g. The induction hypothesis finishes the proof.

For the first statement, see [neretingroups, Lemma 8.4]. The second statement is now clear: if U \subseteq H is open in H, then it is also open in A and hence also gUg' is open in A, so that gUg' \cap H is indeed open in H.

This follows immediately from the fact that \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is an open tdlc subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) for this topology.

By definition of the topology, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is discrete if and only if \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is. The result is now an immediate consequence of [bossaert, Proposition 3.14].

Let g\in\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). It suffices to find a sequence of automorphisms g_n\in\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}), where n\in\mathbb N, converging to g in the permutation topology on \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta). Let c\in\Delta be any chamber and, for every n\in\mathbb N, define the set B_n to be the convex closure of the ball \ensuremath\operatorname{\mathsf{B}}_n(c). Note that B_n is panel-closed.

Proposition 3.12 yields an automorphism g_n that agrees on B_n with g. Moreover, the only panels where the local action of g_n is not guaranteed to be a permutation in \ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{} are the panels parallel to some panel in B_n. By our assumption on the rungs, however, the parallel classes of singularities are bounded (Proposition 4.6), and hence finite. Hence we have g_n\in\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}), and this finishes our proof.

Implications (i) \Rightarrow (ii) \Rightarrow (iii) \Rightarrow (iv) \Rightarrow (v) are straightforward. For (iii) \Rightarrow (i), if \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is closed, then \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{})=\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) by Proposition 6.6, and hence \ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}=\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}. Finally, (v) \Rightarrow (iii) is a general fact in the permutation topology: if a point stabilizer of a permutation group is closed, then the group itself is closed.

Since K_\ensuremath\mathcal{P} contains the setwise panel stabilizer \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\}} as a subgroup of finite index, it suffices to note that \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}_{\{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\}} is compact and open in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) (as it is a union of finitely many cosets of chamber stabilizers), and hence in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) as well. The same argument works for K_{n,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}} once we note that the set \{c\in\Delta\mid\operatorname{dist}(c,\ensuremath\mathcal{P})\leq n\} contains only finitely many panels.

First, recall from [bossaert, Theorem 4.8] that \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is compactly generated. Combining Proposition 6.8, Remark 5.7, Proposition 5.6, we now see that \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is generated by a finite number of compactly generated subgroups.

Since we can write

the result follows immediately from Proposition 6.8.

This is [bossaert, Theorem 5.7]. Notice that the condition that not all local groups F_i be free was erroneously omitted in loc. cit., but is required to exclude the possibility that \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{})^+ = 1, in which case we have not been able to determine whether or not the discrete group \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) is simple.

The inequality is clear. For the equality, pick any minimal gallery \gamma from c_1 to c_2 in \Delta and consider the induced path in the i-tree-wall tree, which is a path without backtracking. Notice that we have a one-to-one correspondence between i-adjacencies on \gamma on the one hand, and pairs of adjacent edges in \Gamma_i sharing a common vertex in the bipartition class of residues of type i\cup i^\perp on the other hand. Consequently, if the path in \Gamma_i has even length, say 2n, there are n adjacencies of type i on \gamma, and if the path has odd length, say 2n+1, there are either n or n+1 adjacencies of type i on \gamma. Our conclusion follows.

This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 7.7.

The fact that the action of G is minimal was already shown in [bossaert, Lemma 4.5]. Now let i\in I and consider the i-tree-wall tree \Gamma_i. By Corollary 7.8, the induced action of G on \Gamma_i is also cobounded. Note that \Gamma_i is unbounded, as i is not an isolated node of the diagram. If G would fix a point at infinity \xi of the i-tree-wall tree, then it would stabilize all horospheres through \xi. However, for each horosphere, there are vertices of the tree at unbounded distance to that horosphere, contradicting the coboundedness.

It suffices to observe that already \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\mathbf{1}) is cobounded (where \mathbf{1} is the local data with F_i = 1 for all i), as in [bossaert, Corollary 3.4], so also any larger subgroup of \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) is cobounded. The result now follows from Proposition 7.9.

First assume G does not act minimally on \Delta, i.e., there exists a nontrivial convex G-invariant subset C of chambers. Let c\sim_i d be such that c\in C and d\notin C. Using absence of isolated nodes in the diagram, take j\in I such that m_{ij}=2, and let e\sim_j d. By convexity, e\notin C. Now define C' as the set of vertices in \Gamma_i that correspond to residues of \Delta having nonempty intersection with C,

Note that C' is a nonempty G-invariant subtree of \Gamma_i. Moreover, we claim that e is not contained in any residue in C'. Indeed, if it were the case that e\in\ensuremath\mathcal{R}\in C', let e'\in \ensuremath\mathcal{R}\cap C. The projection \operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{R}(c) is either d or e, depending on the type of \ensuremath\mathcal{R}. By the gate property, there is a minimal gallery joining c to e' passing through either d or e, contradicting the convexity of C. Hence, C' is a nontrivial G-invariant subtree, and the action of G on \Gamma_i is not minimal.

Conversely, assume that G does not act minimally on \Gamma_i for some i\in I, i.e. there exists a nontrivial G-invariant subtree D. Define D' as the set of chambers of \Delta that lie in a residue corresponding to a vertex in D,

Clearly D' is a nontrivial G-invariant subset of chambers. Let c,c'\in D' and consider a minimal gallery \gamma from c to d in \Delta. Then \gamma descends to a path in \Gamma_i between the residues in D containing c and d. This path is contained in the subtree D, hence \gamma is contained in D'. In other words, D' is a nontrivial convex G-invariant subsystem, and the action of G on \Delta is not minimal.

This is [tits_arbres, Lemme 4.4].

The subtle but important point here is that because \Delta is irreducible, the induced action of \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) on each tree-wall tree \Gamma_i is faithful; see [silva1, Lemma 3.19]. In particular, the action of N on each \Gamma_i is non-trivial. The result now follows from Proposition 7.11, Lemma 7.12.

We may of course assume that e_1\neq e_2. Let T_1 be the half-tree determined by e_1 not containing e_2 and let T_2 be the half-tree determined by e_2 not containing e_1. By [leboudec, Lemma 4.3], there exist two hyperbolic elements g_1 and g_2 in G with axes \gamma_1 \subset T_1 and \gamma_2 \subset T_2, respectively. In particular, the axes are disjoint, and the shortest path joining \gamma_1 and \gamma_2 passes through both e_1 and e_2. The product g_1 g_2 is then the required hyperbolic automorphism; its axis will contain this shortest path.

By Proposition 7.13, the action of N on \Delta is combinatorially dense. By Proposition 7.11, the induced action of N on \Gamma_i is combinatorially dense, so we can apply Lemma 7.16.

Let G = \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}), let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be an i-panel, let \ensuremath\mathcal{T} be the corresponding i-tree-wall and let c \in \ensuremath\mathcal{P}. Let g \in G_{(T)} and h = \varphi_{\ensuremath\mathcal{P},c}(g) \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta). To show that h \in G, we will follow the proof of the independence property for \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) from [silva1, Proposition 3.16], with as only new ingredient the fact that we have to allow a finite number of singularities. More precisely, if some j-panel \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is contained in \ensuremath\mathcal{T} or in any of the other i-wings X_i(d) with d \neq c, then \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is fixed by h; in particular, it cannot be a singularity. On the other hand, if \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' is contained in the i-wing X_i(c), then the local action of h on \ensuremath\mathcal{P}' coincides with the local action of g on \ensuremath\mathcal{P}', which, by assumption, is contained in F_j up to a finite number of exceptions, for which it is contained in \acute F_j. This shows that indeed h \in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}).

The proof of [silva1, Lemma 3.17] can be copied verbatim to this more general setting.

Let \ensuremath\mathcal{T} be an arbitrary i-tree-wall and let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be an i-panel of \ensuremath\mathcal{T}. In the i-tree-wall tree \Gamma_i, \ensuremath\mathcal{T} corresponds to a vertex v and the edges incident to v correspond to the chambers in \ensuremath\mathcal{P}. Let c,d be two distinct chambers of \ensuremath\mathcal{P}. By Proposition 7.17, there exists some i-hyperbolic element g\in N such that the axis of g in \Gamma_i contains the two edges corresponding to c and d. We can assume that d is the chamber pointing towards the attracting end of g in \partial\Gamma_i and c towards the repelling end, replacing g by g^{-1} if necessary.

Note that g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{T}\neq\ensuremath\mathcal{T} since g is an i-hyperbolic automorphism. Moreover, by construction, we have \operatorname{proj}_\ensuremath\mathcal{P}(g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c)=d and \operatorname{proj}_{g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax\ensuremath\mathcal{P}}(d)=g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c. Hence we can apply Lemma 7.20 to obtain that

Since \Delta is assumed to be thick, there is at least one such chamber e\,\in\,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\setminus\{c,d\}. Now recall that c and d were chosen arbitrarily in \ensuremath\mathcal{P}, so we can repeat the proof with different pairs \{c,d\} and multiply the resulting equations (?) to obtain that

Moreover, if G satisfies the independence property, then G_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} = \prod_{e\,\in\,\ensuremath\mathcal{P}} V_i^G(e), showing the last statement.

Write \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) and N = \langle \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} \rangle, where \ensuremath\mathcal{T} ranges over all tree-walls. Note that N is nontrivial, since not all local groups act freely. Thanks to Corollary 7.10, Proposition 7.19, we may apply Proposition 7.21 to obtain that every normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} contains N. Hence \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is monolithic with monolith N.

To show that N is simple, let A\trianglelefteq N be the intersection of all nontrivial normal subgroups of N. This is a characteristic subgroup of N, which is therefore normal in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. Notice that N is combinatorially dense by Proposition 7.13, so by Proposition 7.21 (applied with N in place of G), any nontrivial normal subgroup of N contains V_i^N(c), for all i \in I and all c \in \Delta. It follows that also A contains all V_i^N(c). Now recall that V_i^{\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}}(c) \leq \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} \leq N (where \ensuremath\mathcal{T} is the i-tree-wall through c), so V_i^N(c) = V_i^{\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}}(c) \neq 1.

It follows that A is a nontrivial normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. By Proposition 7.21 again, A contains the monolith N, so that in fact A=N, showing that N is indeed simple.

Write \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). If every local group F_i acts freely, then \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is discrete and there is nothing to prove.

Otherwise, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is monolithic by Proposition 7.22 and the monolith is generated by tree-wall fixators. By the assumption on the diagram, there exists at least one index i\in I such that an i-tree-wall \ensuremath\mathcal{T} contains only finitely many chambers. Then the fixator \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} — as the intersection of finitely many chamber stabilizers — is open. Consequently, the monolith of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is open, and so is every nontrivial normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}.

This is [bossaert, Theorem 5.6], except that statement ? is not mentioned in the statement of loc. cit. but only in its proof, more precisely in the first paragraph on p. 884.

Abbreviate \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{F}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{},\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}) and \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}} = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}(\ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{}). First, suppose that \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} has a simple subgroup H of finite index. Since \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is infinite, H is a normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. On the other hand, by Proposition 7.22, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is monolithic, with monolith N = \langle \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} \rangle, where \ensuremath\mathcal{T} ranges over all tree-walls. Since N \leq H and H is simple, we have N = H, so the monolith N of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} has finite index in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}.

Now let A = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}^+ \cap \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} \unlhd \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. By Proposition 6.6, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is dense in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}. Since \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}^+ is an open subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}, it follows that A \neq 1. Hence A has finite index in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. Taking the closure, it then follows that \overline{A} has finite index in \overline{\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}} = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}. Since \overline{A} \leq \overline{\operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}^+} \cap \overline{\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}} = \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}^+, we see that \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}^+ has finite index in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}, and the characterisation follows from Proposition 7.24.

Conversely, suppose that the local data \ensuremath\boldsymbol{\smash{\acute F}}\@ifnextchar,{\mkern-2mu}{} satisfies the assumptions postulated. Then by Theorem 7.2, \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}} is simple. Let N = \langle \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{(\ensuremath\mathcal{T})} \rangle be the open normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} generated by all fixators of tree-walls \ensuremath\mathcal{T} of \Delta. By Proposition 7.22, N is a simple group and it is the monolith of \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. We will show that N has finite index in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}.

The closure of N \leq \operatorname{Aut}(\Delta) is a normal subgroup of \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}. Hence N is dense in \operatorname{\mkern2mu\mathcal{U}}, and consequently in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} as well. This implies that the N-orbits and \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}-orbits on the building \Delta agree: for any c\in\Delta and g\in\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}, the stabilizer \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_c is open, hence the intersection N \cap {g\cdot\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_c} is nonempty, and any automorphism h in the intersection satisfies h\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c= g\mkern 2mu\relax.\mkern 2mu\relax c. It follows that \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = {\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_c}\cdot N.

Let \ensuremath\mathcal{P} be a panel of \Delta. By the previous paragraph, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = {\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{\{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\}}}\cdot N. Together with Corollary 6.12, we obtain an increasing union

where the H_n \leq \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}_{\{\ensuremath\mathcal{P}\}} are compact open subgroups. On the other hand, \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} is compactly generated by Corollary 6.9. The family \{H_n \cdot N\}_{n\in\mathbb N} defines an open cover of any compact generating set and hence \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}} = H_n\cdot N for some n\in\mathbb N.

In conclusion, N is both open and cocompact in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}. The coset space {\operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}}/N being both compact and discrete, it follows that indeed N has finite index in \operatorname{\mkern1mu\mathcal{G}}, which concludes our proof.