Local indicability in the presence of diagrammatic reducibility

Let f\colon S\to X be a spherical diagram. Since \chi(S)=2>0, the 2-sphere S must contain a vertex s of positive curvature by the combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet Theorem. Thus \omega(lk(s,S))< 2. It follows that f(lk(s,S)) is a subtree of lk(v,X). This is because if \beta were a reduced cycle in f(lk(s,S)), then \omega(lk(s,S))\ge \omega(\beta)\ge 2, which is false. It follows that f(lk(s,S)) contains at least two vertices e_1^{\epsilon_1} and e_2^{\epsilon_2} of valency 1, where the epsilons are in \{ +, -\}. Assume e_1=e_2=e. W.l.o.g. we assume that e_1^{\epsilon_1}=e^+. Then e_2^{\epsilon_2}=e^- (because e_1^{\epsilon_1}\ne e_2^{\epsilon_2}), and we have a path \alpha in f(lk(s,S)) connecting e^+ to e^- such that \omega(\alpha)\le \omega(f(lk(s,S)))<2, which is ruled out. Thus e_1\ne e_2. We have shown that there are two folding edges in S with distinct labels e_1 and e_2.

A 2-complex that satisfies the coloring test has the non-positive immersion property and therefore has locally indicable fundamental group. See Wise [Wise04], Theorem 11.4. We are left with showing DR(2). Let f\colon S\to X be a spherical diagram. Since \chi(S)=2>0, the sphere S must contain a vertex s of positive curvature by the combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet Theorem. Thus \omega(lk(s,S))< 2. It follows from Theorem 2.5 that \omega(lk(s,S))=0, which implies that the subgraph f(lk(s,S)) is contained in lk_0(f(v,X)), a forest. It follows that f(lk(s,S)) is a tree and therefore contains at least two vertices of valency 1, say e_1^{\epsilon_1} and e_2^{\epsilon_2}, where the epsilons are in \{ +, -\}. Suppose e_1=e_2=e. We may assume w.l.o.g. that e_1^{\epsilon_1}=e^+. Then e_2^{\epsilon_2}=e^-, because e_1^{\epsilon_1}\ne e_2^{\epsilon_2}. But this implies that e^+ and e^- lie in a single component of lk_0(v,X), a contradiction. Thus e_1\ne e_2 and again there are two folding edges labeled differently in S.

A C(4)-T(4) 2-complex has the non-positive immersions property and hence its fundamental group is locally indicable. See Wise [Wise22], Corollary 8.2. We have left to show DR(2). Note that a C(4)-T(4) 2-complex satisfies the weight test where all weights are 1/2. Let f\colon S\to X be a spherical diagram. Since \chi(S)=2>0, the sphere S must contain a vertex s of positive curvature by the combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet Theorem. Thus there is a vertex s in S of valency \le 3. Since lk(v,X) does not contain cycles of length less than 4, it follows that f(lk(s,S)) is a tree, in fact a single edge in lk(v,X) and the valence of s is 2. Let e_1^{\epsilon_1} and e_2^{\epsilon_2} be the vertices of f(lk(s,S)). Assume that e_1=e_2=e. W.l.o.g. we assume that e_1^{\epsilon_1}=e^+. Then e_2^{\epsilon_2}=e^-. It follows that X contains a 2-cell that is attached via a path that contains ee, which we do not allow. Thus e_1\ne e_2 and again there are two folding edges labeled differently in S.

This can be argued in more than one way, see Remark 1 below. We present an elementary proof that, with slight variations, also applies to the next lemma.

Suppose A is a finitely generated subgroup of \pi_1(X) minimally generated by n elements. Let B be a finitely presented group on n generators that maps onto A. We can construct a finite 2-complex W with fundamental group B, and a map \alpha\colon W\to X so that the induced map

has image A. Let Z=\alpha(W). Since Z is a finite subcomplex of X, it collapses into the 1-skeleton X^{(1)}. So we may assume that Z\subseteq X^{(1)}. Our map \alpha factors through X^{(1)}:

where \iota is the inclusion and \iota\circ \beta=\alpha. Thus we have

Since B is generated by n elements, \beta_*(B) is generated by \le n elements. Since \beta_*(B) maps onto A it is generated by \ge n elements, and therefore minimally generated by n elements. Since \beta_*(B)\subseteq \pi_1(X^{(1)}), it is a free group of rank n, and therefore B is free of rank n. We have shown that the only n-generator group B that maps onto the n-generator group A is free of rank n. It follows that A is free of rank n.

Suppose A is a finitely generated subgroup of \pi_1(X) so that H_1(A) is finite. Then there exists a finitely presented group B that maps onto A so that H_1(B) is finite. We can construct a finite 2-complex W with fundamental group B and a map \alpha\colon W\to X so that the induced map

has image A. Let Z=\alpha(W). Since Z is a finite subcomplex of X, it collapses into L. So we may assume that Z\subseteq L. Our map \alpha factors through L:

where \iota is the inclusion and \iota\circ \beta=\alpha. Thus we have

Since B is finitely generated, so is \beta_*(B). Since H_1(B) is finite, so is H_1(\beta_*(B)). Since \beta_*(B) is a finitely generated subgroup of the locally indicable group \pi_1(L) it follows that \beta_*(B)=1. Thus A=\iota_*(\beta_*(B))=1.

This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.1. Let \bar X be the covering complex whose fundamental group is the kernel of the inclusion induced map \pi_1(X)\to \pi_1(Y). Then, by standard covering space theory (see Hatcher [hatcher]), we have \bar X\subseteq \tilde Y, where \tilde Y is the universal covering of Y. Since every finite subcomplex of \tilde Y collapses into the 1-skeleton by Theorem 2.1, every finite subcomplex of \bar X has free fundamental group. It follows from Lemma 3.1 that \pi_1(\bar X) is locally free and hence locally indicable. Thus the kernel of the inclusion induced map \pi_1(X)\to \pi_1(Y) is locally indicable, and if we assume that \pi_1(Y) is as well, we can conclude that \pi_1(X) is locally indicable.

Let p_Y\colon \tilde Y\to Y be the universal covering of Y. We have a commutative diagram

where \bar f is the lift of f. Since f is an immersion outside of L we have that \bar f is an immersion outside of p_X^{-1}(L). Let Z be a finite subcomplex of \bar X that is not already contained in p_X^{-1}(L)\cup \bar X^{(1)}. Then Z'=\bar f(Z) is a finite subcomplex of \tilde Y not contained in p_Y^{-1}(K)\cup \tilde Y^{(1)}. Since Y is DR away from K, Z' contains a free edge \tilde e not in p_Y^{-1}(K) by Theorem 2.2. Let \tilde d be the 2-cell that can be collapsed by pushing in \tilde e. Let \bar e be an edge in Z so that \bar f(\bar e)=\tilde e. Let \bar d_1,\ldots, \bar d_k be the 2-cells in Z that contain \bar e in their boundary. Let m_{\bar e} be the midpoint of \bar e and m_{\tilde e} be the midpoint of \tilde e. Since \bar f is an immersion outside of p_X^{-1}(L) the map \bar f\colon lk(m_{\bar e}, \bar X)\to lk(m_{\tilde e}, \tilde Y) is an embedding. Therefore f\colon lk(m_{\bar e}, Z)\to lk(m_{\tilde e}, Z') is an embedding as well. Since lk(m_{\tilde e}, \tilde Z') is a single half circle (because \tilde e is a free edge of \tilde d), lk(m_{\bar e}, Z) can not contain more than one half circle. Thus k=1 and \bar d_1 is the only 2-cell of Z that contains the edge \bar e in its boundary, and it does so exactly once. It follows that \bar e is a free edge in Z.

Each component \bar L_c of p_X^{-1}(L) is a covering of some component L_c of L. Since {p_X}_*\colon \pi_1(\bar L_c)\to \pi_1(L_c) is injective and we assumed that \pi_1(L_c) is locally indicable, it follows that \pi_1(\bar L_c) is locally indicable. Thus \pi_1(p_X^{-1}(L)\cup\bar X^{(1)}), being a free product of locally indicable groups and a free group, is locally indicable.

(1) Let p_X\colon \bar X\to X be the covering associated with the kernel of the induced map f_*\colon \pi_1(X)\to \pi_1(Y). By Lemma 3.5 every finite subcomplex of \bar X collapses into p^{-1}_X(L)\cup\bar X^{(1)}. If L is DR then p_X^{-1}(L) is DR, because it is a covering space, and therefore p^{-1}_X(L)\cup\bar X^{(1)} is DR. It follows that \bar X is DR, and therefore X is DR.

(2) If every component of L has locally indicable fundamental group, then by Lemma 3.6 we have that \pi_1(p^{-1}_X(L)\cup\bar X^{(1)}) is locally indicable. Since every finite subcomplex of \bar X collapses into p^{-1}_X(L)\cup\bar X^{(1)}, it follows from Lemma 3.2 that \pi_1(\bar X) is locally indicable. We have

Since we assume that \pi_1(Y) is locally indicable, so is \pi_1(X).

The fact that \Gamma admits a zero/one-angle structure that satisfies the coloring test is due to Huck-Rosebrock. See Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 of [HarRose2022] and the references therein. Zero/one-angled 2-complexes that satisfy the coloring test have the non-positive immersions property and hence have locally indicable fundamental group. See Wise [Wise04], Theorem 11.4.

The DR(2) statement has not appeared elsewhere and we will provide the details. We want to use Theorem 2.7. We need to show that x^+ and x^- lie in different components of lk_0(K(\Gamma)) for every edge x\in K(\Gamma). Lets take a closer look at lk(K(\Gamma)). It was shown in [HarRose2022], Theorem 3.3, that K(\Gamma) has the following local bi-forest property: If x_1,\ldots, x_n are the edges of K(\Gamma), then there exists a choice of \epsilon_i\in \{ +,-\} so that \Lambda_1=\Lambda(x_1^{\epsilon_1},\ldots, x_n^{\epsilon_n}) and \Lambda_2=\Lambda(x_1^{-\epsilon_1},\ldots, x_n^{-\epsilon_n}) are forests. Here \Lambda(x_1^{\epsilon_1},\ldots, x_n^{\epsilon_n}) is the subgraph of lk(K(\Gamma))=\Lambda spanned by the vertices x_1^{\epsilon_1},\ldots, x_n^{\epsilon_n}. Furthermore, a zero/one-angle structure can be put on K(\Gamma) (see [HarRose2022], Theorem 3.2) so that

Since \Lambda_1 and \Lambda_2 are disjoint, it follows that x^+ and x^-, the x being one of the x_i, lie in different components of lk_0(K(\Gamma)).

This follows directly from Theorem 2.8.

The map f\colon K(\Gamma)\to K(\hat\Gamma) is an immersion outside of K(\Gamma_1), and f(K(\Gamma_1))=y, a single edge. By assumption K(\hat\Gamma) is DR(2), and hence DR away from y. Both statements (1) and (2) now follow from Theorem 3.7.

Any quotient of an injective LOT is injective and injective LOTs are interior reduced. Let \Gamma_0 be a maximal proper sub-LOT of \Gamma and let x be the vertex of \Gamma_0 that is not an edge label in \Gamma_0. If the quotient \hat \Gamma is not compressed, there has to be a boundary vertex y of \Gamma_0 and an edge e of \Gamma not in \Gamma_0 with vertex y labeled by x. But then \Gamma_1=\Gamma_0\cup\{ e \} is a sub-LOT that contains \Gamma_0 and hence, by maximality of \Gamma_0, \Gamma_1=\Gamma. But \Gamma_1 is not boundary reduced, contradicting the assumption that \Gamma is reduced.

Since \hat \Gamma is not boundary reduced, there exists a boundary vertex x that does not occur as an edge label in \hat\Gamma. The LOT \Gamma is obtained from \hat \Gamma by expanding a vertex y to \Gamma_0. Suppose y\ne x. Then x does not occur as an edge label in \Gamma_0 because \Gamma_0 is a sub-LOT of \Gamma. But then x is a boundary vertex of \Gamma that does not occur as an edge label, which contradicts the fact that \Gamma is reduced. It follows that y=x, \hat \Gamma is a sub-LOT of \Gamma, \Gamma=\hat\Gamma\cup \Gamma_0, and the intersection is \{ x \}. This implies that G(\Gamma)=G(\hat \Gamma)*_{\mathbb Z} G(\Gamma_0)). The statement about local indicability of G(\Gamma) follows from Theorem 4.2 in Howie [How82].

We will do induction on the number of vertices. If \Gamma consists of a single vertex, then G(\Gamma)=\mathbb Z which is locally indicable. Let \Gamma be a reduced injective LOT. If \Gamma does not contain a proper sub-LOT, then G(\Gamma) is locally indicable by Theorem 4.1.

Assume \Gamma contains a proper sub-LOT. Then by Lemma 4.4 \Gamma contains a proper sub-LOT \Gamma_0 so that the quotient \hat \Gamma is injective, compressed, and interior reduced. If the quotient \hat \Gamma is not boundary reduced then G(\Gamma) is locally indicable by Lemma 4.5 and induction. Next suppose that the quotient \hat \Gamma is boundary reduced. Then \hat \Gamma is reduced and injective.

We check the conditions of Theorem 4.3. By assumption \hat \Gamma is DR(2). If \Gamma_0 is not boundary reduced and \Gamma_0' is obtained from \Gamma_0 by doing boundary reductions, then \Gamma_0' is reduced and injective and contains fewer vertices than \Gamma. By induction G(\Gamma_0') is locally indicable. Since G(\Gamma_0)=G(\Gamma_0') it follows that G(\Gamma_0) is locally indicable. The conditions of Theorem 4.3 hold, and we conclude that G(\Gamma) is locally indicable.