Small cancellations over relatively hyperbolic groups and embedding theorems

Let \mathcal E denote the free product of all elementary groups E (taken up to isomorphism) such that \pi (E)\subseteq \pi (G). We set G^\ast =G\ast \mathcal E. By a theorem from [HNN], we can embed G^\ast into an (infinitely generated) group R such that all elements of the same order are conjugate in R and

We now apply Theorem 2.6 and embed the group R into a 2-generated group C=S(R) such that any element of C is conjugate to an element of R. As all elements of the same order are conjugate in R, this is so in C. The equality \pi (C)=\pi (G) follows from (Proof) as \pi (C)=\pi (R) by Theorem 2.6.

First note that any countable group G can be embedded into an infinitely generated countable verbally complete group R in the following way. (The idea comes from the proof of the Higman–Neumann–Neumann theorem on embeddings into divisible groups.) We denote by F=F(a_1, a_2, \ldots ) the free group with basis a_1, a_2, \ldots. Let us enumerate the set of all pairs

Starting with the group G we first set G^\ast =G if G is torsion–free, and G^\ast =G\ast E_1\ast E_2 \ast \ldots, where \{ E_1, E_2, \ldots \} is the set of all elementary groups (up to isomorphism), otherwise. Further we construct a sequence of groups G^\ast=U_0\le U_1\le \ldots as follows. Suppose that for some i\ge 0, the group U_i has already been constructed and take p_{i+1}=(v,g). There are two possibilities to consider.

1) The element g has infinite order. Then we define U_{i+1} to be the free product of U_i and F with the amalgamated subgroups \langle g\rangle and \langle v \rangle.

2) The order of g is n< \infty. It is well–known [LS, Theorem 5.2, Ch. 4] that the order of the element v in the group H=\langle a_1, a_2, \ldots \; |\; v^n=1\rangle equals n. Thus the free product of U_i and H with amalgamated subgroups \langle g\rangle and \langle v \rangle is well–defined. We set U_{i+1}=U_i\ast _{\langle g\rangle =\langle v \rangle } H.

Now let U(G^\ast)=\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^\infty U_i. Obviously G^\ast embeds in U(G^\ast), U(G^\ast) is countable and torsion–free whenever G^\ast is torsion–free, and any equation of type w(x_i)=g, where w(x_i) is a word in the alphabet x_1^{\pm 1}, x_2^{\pm 1}, \ldots and g\in G, has a solution in U(G^\ast). Finally we consider the sequence of groups R_1\le R_2 \le \ldots, where R_1=U(G^\ast) and R_{i+1}=U(R_i), i=1,2 \ldots. Clearly the group R=\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^\infty R_i is countable, verbally complete, torsion–free whenever G is torsion–free, and contains a copy of every elementary group E such that \pi (E)\subseteq \pi (G). Let W=S(R) be the group provided by Theorem 2.6.

Consider an equations w(x_i)=v for some v\in W. By Theorem 2.6, there is an element t\in W such that t^{-1}vt\in R. Since R is verbally complete, there is a solution x_1=r_1, x_2=r_2, \ldots to the equation w(x_i)=t^{-1}vt in R. Clearly x_1=tr_1t^{-1}, x_2=tr_2t^{-1}, \ldots is a solution to the equation w(x_i)=v.

Let f_1, f_2\in H^0 be non–commensurable elements of H such that E_G(f_1)\cap E_G(f_2)=\{ 1\}. By Theorem 2.1, G is hyperbolic relative to the collection \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda }\cup E_G(f_1)\cup E_G(f_2).

We construct a sequence of desired elements h_1, h_2, \ldots by induction. By Lemma 8.1, there are f\in E_G(f_1), g\in E_G(f_2) such that the element h_1=fg is hyperbolic ( with respect to the collection \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda }\cup E_G(f_1)\cup E_G(f_2)) and E_G(h_1)=\langle h_1\rangle. Theorem 2.1 implies that G is hyperbolic relative to the collection \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda }\cup E_G(f_1)\cup E_G(f_2)\cup E_G(h_1). Further we construct a hyperbolic (with respect to \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda }\cup E_G(f_1)\cup E_G(f_2)\cup E_G(h_1)) element h_2 as a product of an element of E_G(f_1) and an element of E_G(f_2) as above. As h_2 is hyperbolic, it is not commensurable with h_1. Applying Theorem 2.1 again we join E_G(h_2) to the collection of subgroups with respect to which G is hyperbolic and so on. Continuing this procedure, we get what we need.

Obviously it suffices to deal with the case m=1. The general case will follow if we apply the theorem for m=1 several times.

Let t\in G be an arbitrary element. Passing to a new relative generating set X^\prime =X\cup \{ t\} if necessary, we may assume that t\in X. By Lemma 2.3 there are non–commensurable elements h_1,h_2\in H^0 such that E_G(h_1) and E_G(h_2) are cyclic. According to Theorem 2.1, G is hyperbolic relative to \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda } \cup E_G(h_1)\cup E_G(h_2).

Let \mu ,\varepsilon , \rho be constants such that the conclusions of Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 6.3 are satisfied for \lambda =1/3, c=2, N=1. By Theorem 7.5, there are n and m_1, \ldots , m_n such that the set \mathcal R of all cyclic shifts and their inverses of the word

in the alphabet \mathcal A= X\cup\mathcal H\cup (E_G(h_1)\setminus \{ 1\} )\cup (E_G(h_2)\setminus \{ 1\} ) satisfies the C(1/3, 2, \varepsilon , \mu , \rho )–condition (here h_i^{m_j} is regarded as a letter in E_G(h_i)\setminus \{ 1\}, i=1,2, j=1, \ldots , n). Indeed it suffices to chose large enough n and m_1, \ldots , m_n satisfying m_i\ne \pm m_j whenever i\ne j. Let G_1 be the quotient of G obtained by imposing the relation R=1 and \eta the corresponding natural homomorphism.

By Lemma 5.1, G_1 is hyperbolic relative to the images of H_\lambda , \lambda \in \Lambda and E_G(h_1), E_G(h_2). As any elementary group is hyperbolic, G_1 is also hyperbolic relative to \{ \eta (H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda }\} according to Lemma 8.2. The inclusion \eta (t)\in \eta (H) follows immediately from the equality R=1 in G_1. The third assertion of the theorem follows from Lemma 5.1 b) as any element from the union \bigcup\limits_{\lambda \in \Lambda } H_\lambda has length 1.

Similarly as \eta is injective on E_G(h_1)\cup E_G(h_2), \eta (h_1) and \eta (h_2) are elements of infinite order. Note also that \eta (h_1) and \eta (h_2) are not commensurable in G_1. Indeed otherwise the intersection \big( \eta (E_G(h_1))\big) ^g\cap \eta (E_G(h_2)) is infinite for some g\in G contradictory the first assertion of Lemma 8.3. Assume now that g\in E_{G_1}(\eta (h_1)), where E_{G_1}(\eta (h_1)) is the maximal elementary subgroup of G_1 containing \eta (h_1). By the first assertion of Theorem 2.1, \big( \eta (h_1^m)\big) ^g= \eta (h_1^{\pm m}) for a certain m\ne 0. Therefore, \big( \eta (E_G(h_1)) \big) ^g\cap \eta (E_G(h_1)) contains \eta (h_1^m) and in particular this intersection is infinite. By the second assertion of Lemma 8.3, this means that g\in \eta (E_G(h_1)). Thus we proved that \eta (E_G(h_1))=E_{G_1}(\eta (h_1)). The same is true for h_2. Finally, using injectivity of \eta on E_G(h_1)\cup E_G(h_2) again, we obtain

This means that the image of H is a suitable subgroup of G_1. To complete the proof it remains to note that the last assertion of the theorem follows from Lemma 6.3.

The desired group S is constructed as an inductive limit of relatively hyperbolic groups as follows. Let us set

where F(x,y) is the free group of rank 2 generated by x and y. We enumerate all elements of

and

Suppose that for some i\ge 0, the group G(i) has already been constructed together with an epimorphism \xi _i\colon G(0)\to G(i). We use the same notation for elements x,y, r_0, r_1, \ldots , g_0, g_1, \ldots and their images under \xi _i in G(i). Assume that G(i) satisfies the following conditions. (It is straightforward to check these conditions for G(0) and the identity map \xi _0\colon G(0)\to G(0).)

1. (i) The restriction of \xi _i to the subgroup R is injective. In what follows we identify R with its image in G(i).

2. (ii) G(i) is hyperbolic relative to R.

3. (iii) The elements x and y generate a suitable subgroup of G(i).

4. (iv) All hyperbolic elements of G(i) have infinite order. In particular, \pi (G(i))=\pi (R).

5. (v) The elements g_0, \ldots , g_i are parabolic in G(i).

6. (vi) In the group G(i), the elements r_0, \ldots , r_i are contained in the subgroup generated by x and y.

The group G(i+1) is obtained from G(i) in two steps.

Step 1. Let us take the element g_{i+1} and construct a group G(i+1/2) as follows. If g_{i+1} is a parabolic element of G(i), we set G(i+1/2)=G(i). If g_{i+1} is hyperbolic, the order of g_{i+1} is infinite by (iv). Furthermore, since \pi (E_{G(i)}(g_{i+1}))\subseteq \pi (G(i))=\pi (R), there is a monomorphism \iota\colon E_{G(i)}(g_{i+1})\to R. Then we take the HNN–extension

In both cases G(i+1/2) is hyperbolic relative to R. Indeed this is obvious in the first case and follows from the second assertion of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.5 in the second one. Note also that all hyperbolic elements of G(i+1/2) have infinite order. (In the second case this immediately follows from the description of periodic elements in HNN–extensions [LS, Ch. IV, Theorem 2.4].)

Step 2. First we wish to show that the subgroup generated by x and y is suitable in G(i+1/2). This is obvious in case g_{i+1} is parabolic in G(i), so we consider the second case only. Since \langle x, y\rangle is suitable in G(i) by (iii), Lemma 2.3 yields the existence of infinitely many pairwise non–commensurable (in G(i)) hyperbolic elements h_j\in\langle x, y\rangle of infinite order, j=1,2 \ldots, such that E_{G(i)}(h_j)=\langle h_j\rangle. At most one of these elements is commensurable with g_{i+1} in G(i). Therefore, there exist two non–commensurable in G(i) hyperbolic elements of infinite order, say h_1,h_2\in \langle x, y\rangle, such that h_j is not commensurable with g_{i+1} in G(i) for j=1,2. In particular, h_j, j=1,2, is not conjugate to an element of E_{G(i)}(g_{i+1}) as \langle g_{i+1}\rangle has finite index in E_{G(i)}(g_{i+1}). According to Britton’s Lemma on HNN–extensions [LS, Ch. 5, Sec.2], this implies that h_1 and h_2 are hyperbolic and non–commensurable in G(i+1/2). Furthermore, if for some j=1,2, n\in \mathbb N, and u\in G(i+1/2), we have u^{-1}h_j^nu=h_j^{\pm n}, then u\in G(i) by Britton’s Lemma. Thus the explicit description of maximal elementary subgroups from the first assertion of Theorem 2.1 yields the equality E_{G(i+1/2)}(h_j)=E_{G(i)}(h_j) for j=1,2. Finally since E_{G(i)}(h_j)=\langle h_j\rangle and h_1, h_2 are non–commensurable, we have

By Definition 2.2 this means that the subgroup generated by x and y is suitable in G(i+1/2).

We now apply Theorem 2.4 to the group G=G(i+1/2), the subgroup H=\langle x,y\rangle \le G(i+1/2), and the set of elements \{ t, r_{i+1}\}. Let G(i+1)= \overline{G}, where \overline {G} is the quotient group provided by Theorem 2.4. Since t becomes an element of \langle x,y\rangle in G(i+1), there is a naturally defined epimomorphism \xi _{i+1}\colon G(0)\to G(i+1). Using Theorem 2.4 it is straightforward to check properties (i)–(vi) for G(i+1). This completes the inductive step.

Let N_i denote the kernel of \xi _i. Observe that N_1, N_2, \ldots form an increasing normal series and set S=G(0)/N, where N=\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty N_i. By (i) the subgroup R is embedded into S. Further it is easy to see that S is 2–generated. Indeed, G(0) is generated by x,y, r_1, r_2, \ldots. Condition (vi) yields r_i\in \langle x,y \rangle in S for any i\in \mathbb N. Thus S is generated by x and y. Finally let s be an element of S. We take an arbitrary preimage g\in G(0) of s. Then the image of the element g becomes parabolic at a certain step according to (v). Thus s is conjugate to an element of R in S. The theorem is proved.

Let \partial \Gamma = s_1q_1s_2q_2 as above (see Fig. ?). Let \partial \Pi=q_1a and \partial \Sigma =q_2b. Then the word U\equiv {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_1) is an \varepsilon-piece. Indeed the first two conditions in Definition 4.2 are satisfied. If the third condition is not, then {\rm\bf Lab\, } (s_1) {\rm\bf Lab\, } (\partial \Pi ){\rm\bf Lab\, } (s_1)^{-1} ={\rm\bf Lab\, } (\partial \Sigma ). That is, {\rm\bf Lab\, } (s_1q_1as_1^{-1}bq_2)=1 in G. Hence we can cut the subdiagram of \Delta bounded by s_1q_1as_1^{-1}bq_2 and fill the obtained hole with a diagram over (?) without \mathcal R–cells reducing the number of \mathcal R-cells by 2by 2. This contradicts the assumption that \Delta is reduced. Thus U is an \varepsilon-piece, and (4.3) follows from the C(\varepsilon ,\mu, \lambda, c,\rho )–condition.

Let us fix \lambda ,c>0 and sufficiently small \mu< 1/16. The exact value of \mu required can easily extracted from the proof. If what follows, we assume that \mu is small enough comparably to \lambda. Further we choose the constants \varepsilon and \rho according to Lemma 4.4. Since the C(\varepsilon , \mu , \lambda , c, \rho )-condition becomes stronger as \rho increases, we may increase \rho if necessary without violating the conclusion of Lemma 4.4. The exact lower bound can be easily extracted from our proof.

For a word W in the alphabet X\cup \mathcal H that represents 1 in G_1, we denote by Area_1^{rel} (W) its relative area, that is the minimal number k in a representation of type

with the equality in the group F defined by (?), where R_i\in \mathcal R\cup \mathcal Q. Similarly, by Area^{rel}(W) we denote the relative area of a word W representing 1 in G, i.e., the minimal number k in the above decomposition, where R_i\in \mathcal R.

As G is hyperbolic relative to \{ H_\lambda \} _{ \lambda \in \Lambda }, there exists a constant L>0 such that for any word W in X\cup \mathcal H representing 1 in G, we have Area^{rel}(W)\le L\| W\|. To prove the lemma it suffices to show that there is a constant \alpha >0 such that for any word W representing 1 in G_1, Area_1^{rel}(W)\le \alpha \| W\|. We are going to prove this inequality for

We proceed by induction on the length of W. Let p be a path labeled by W in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Suppose first that p is not (1/2 ,0)–quasi–geodesic. Passing to a cyclic shift of W if necessary, we may assume that p=p_0p_1, where p_0 is a subpath of p such that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} ((p_0)_-, (p_0)_+)< l(p_0)/2. Let q be a geodesic path in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) that goes from (p_0)_- to (p_0)_+. Thus l(q)< l(p_0)/2. We denote by U_0, U_1, and V the labels of p_0, p_1, and q respectively. Then

where U_0V^{-1} represents 1 in G and VU_1 represents 1 in G_1. Obviously we have

and

Using the inductive hypothesis, we obtain

as \alpha > 3L.

Now suppose that p is a (1/2, 0)–quasi–geodesic path in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Since C(\varepsilon , \mu , \lambda , c, \rho )–condition implies C(\varepsilon , \mu , 1/2 , c, \rho ) whenever \lambda >1/2, it suffices to prove the lemma for \lambda \le 1/2. So we may assume that p is (\lambda , c)–quasi–geodesic as well. Let \Delta be a reduced diagram over (?) such that \partial \Delta is labeled W. Assume that \Delta has at least one \mathcal R–cell. (Otherwise the lemma is obviously true.) Passing to an \mathcal O-equivalent diagram if necessary and using Lemma 4.4, we can find an \mathcal R–cell \Pi and a contiguity subdiagram \Gamma of \Pi to \partial \Delta with (\Pi , \Gamma , \partial \Delta )>1-13\mu. Let \partial \Gamma =s_1q_1s_2q_2, where q_1 (respectively q_2) is a subpath of \partial \Pi (respectively \partial \Delta) and \max \{ \| s_1\| ,\, \| s_2\| \} \le \varepsilon. Let also \partial \Pi =q_1u and \partial \Delta =wq_2.

Note that perimeter of the subdiagram \Xi of \Delta bounded by the path s_2^{-1}us_1^{-1}w is smaller than perimeter of \Delta if \rho is large enough and \mu is close to zero. Indeed as \Gamma contains no \mathcal R–cells, we can regard s_1q_1s_2q_2 as a cycle in the Cayley graph \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Thus,

(Recall that l(\partial \Pi )\ge \rho by the C(\varepsilon , \mu , \lambda , c, \rho )-condition .) On the other hand,

If \rho is big enough and \mu is small enough, the right side of (Proof) is greater than the right side of (Proof) and hence l(\partial \Xi )<l(\partial \Delta ).

Therefore, by induction the total number n_1 of \mathcal R– and \mathcal Q–cells in \Xi is at most

Furthermore, as q_2 is (1/2, 0)–quasi–geodesic in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H), we have

Therefore, the perimeter of \Gamma satisfies

Hence we may assume that the number n_2 of \mathcal Q–cells of \Gamma is at most

Finally, combining (Proof) and (Proof), we obtain

whenever \rho is big enough. This completes the proof of relative hyperbolicity of G_1. The hyperbolicity of the Cayley graph follows from Lemma 3.9.

Note that if \mu <1/30, the inequality (Proof) implies

for every non–trivial word W which is geodesic in G and represents 1 in G_1. Therefore, the second statement of the lemma holds if we assume \rho \ge 2(N+c+2\varepsilon )/\lambda.

Recall that \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) is hyperbolic by Lemma 3.9. First suppose that |g|_{X\cup \mathcal H}=\| U\| > 8\delta, where \delta is the hyperbolicity constant of \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Since g is a shortest element in g^G and U is a shortest word representing g, there exists k > 8\delta so that the path p labeled U^n is a k–local geodesic in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) for any n. Therefore, by Lemma 3.6, p is (1/3, 2\delta )–quasi–geodesic.

Further if |g|_{X\cup \mathcal H}=\| U\| \le 8\delta, then for any n\in \mathbb N, we have

where d is the constant provided by Lemma 6.1. Hence the path p labeled U^n is \left(\frac{d}{8\delta } , 8\delta \right)–quasi–geodesic. It remains to set \alpha = \min\{ \frac13 ,\, \frac{d}{8\delta }\} and a= 8\delta.

Let us fix \lambda , c>0. Observe that the C_1 (\varepsilon , \mu,\lambda , c, \rho )–condition becomes stronger as \lambda increases and c decreases. Hence it suffices to prove the lemma assuming that \lambda < \alpha and c>a for \alpha and a provided by Lemma 6.2. Let us choose constants 1/16>\mu >0, \varepsilon >0, \rho >0 such that

1. (\ast) the conclusion of Lemma 4.4 holds.

Again as in the proof of Lemma 5.1, we note that the C_1 (\varepsilon , \mu,\lambda , c, \rho )–condition becomes stronger as \mu decreases and \varepsilon , \rho increase. Hence we may decrease \mu and then increase \rho and \varepsilon if necessary without violating (\ast). In particular, without loss of generality, we may assume that

where \kappa =\kappa (\lambda, c) is the constant provided by Lemma 3.1 and \delta is the hyperbolicity constant of \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). We fix \varepsilon from now on.

Suppose that g is an element of order n>0 in G_1 such that its preimage has infinite order in G. Assume also that g has the smallest length among all elements from the conjugacy class g^{G_1}. Denote by U a shortest word in the alphabet X\cup \mathcal H representing g in G_1. Then there exists a diagram \Delta over (?) with boundary label U^n. By Lemma 6.2, the label of \partial \Delta is (\lambda , c)–quasi-geodesic (in G) and \Delta contains at least one \mathcal R-cell. (For otherwise \Delta is a diagram over (?) and U^n=1 in G.) Note that passing from \Delta to an \mathcal O-equivalent diagram does not affect \partial \Delta and the number of \mathcal R-cells. Thus by Lemma 4.4 we can assume that there exists an \mathcal R–cell \Pi in \Delta and \varepsilon–contiguity subdiagram \Gamma of \Pi to \partial \Delta such that (\Pi , \Gamma , \partial \Delta )> 1-13\mu .

Let \partial \Gamma =s_1q_1s_2q_2 as on Fig. 1. Since \Gamma has no \mathcal R-cells, we may think of s_1q_1s_2q_2 as a qadrangle in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H), where q_i is (\lambda , c)-quasi-geodesic, and l(s_i)\le \varepsilon for i=1,2. Therefore we have

(Recall again that l(\partial \Pi)\ge \rho by the C_1 (\varepsilon , \mu,\lambda , c, \rho )–condition.) In particular, choosing \rho large enough we can make l(q_2) as large as we want.

Passing from U to a cyclic shift of U^{\pm 1} if necessary, we may assume that {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2) is a prefix of U^n . We now have three cases to consider. Our goal is to show that neither of them is possible whenever \mu is small enough and \rho is large enough.

Case 1. Suppose that l(q_2)\ge 4\| U\| /3. This allows us to find two long disjoint equal subwords of {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2). More precisely, we decompose {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2) as {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2)\equiv WV_1WV_2, where

and

Let q_2=w_1v_1w_2v_2 be the corresponding decomposition of the path q_2. Corollary 3.3 applied to the quadrangle s_1q_1s_2q_2 implies that there is a point o\in q_1 such that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (o, (w_1)_+)\le K +\varepsilon, where K depends on \lambda, c, and \delta only. Let q_1^{-1}=r_1t, where (r_1)_+=o. Thus we have

Similarly one can find a subpath r_2^\xi, \xi =\pm 1, of q_1^{-1} such that

We note that r_1 and r_2 are disjoint. Indeed otherwise r_1 passes through (r_2)_- or (r_2)_+. For definiteness, assume that (r_2)_-\in r_1. Then we have

On the other hand,

These inequalities contradict each other if l(q_2) is large enough. As explained before, the later condition can always be ensured by choosing sufficiently large \rho (see (Proof)).

Thus we have a decomposition q_1^{-1} =r_1t_1r_2^{\xi }t_2, \xi =\pm 1. Let {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_1)^{-1} \equiv R_1T_1R_2T_2 be the corresponding decomposition of the label. By (Proof) and (Proof), we have R_1=Y_1WZ_1 and R_2= Y_2W^{\pm 1} Z_2 in G, where \| Y_i\|, \| X_i\| \le K+\varepsilon for i=1,2. Hence R_1=YR_2^{\pm 1 } Z in G, where \| Y\| , \| Z\| \le 2(K +\varepsilon ). Without loss of generality, we may assume that words Y and Z are geodesic in G. Let aybz be the corresponding rectangle in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H), where {\rm\bf Lab\, } (a)\equiv R_1^{-1}, {\rm\bf Lab\, } (y)\equiv Y, {\rm\bf Lab\, } (b)\equiv R_2^{\pm 1}, {\rm\bf Lab\, } (z)\equiv Z. Recall that R_1, R_2 are subwords of the (\lambda , c)–quasi-geodesic word {\rm\bf Lab\, } (\partial \Pi ). Hence a,b are (\lambda , c)–quasi-geodesic. Using (Proof) and the triangle inequality, we obtain

Clearly we can ensure l(a)>(4\max\{ l(y), l(z)\} +c)/\lambda by taking large enough \rho. This allows us to apply Corollary 3.5. Thus we obtain subsegments a^\prime , b^\prime of the sides a and b, respectively, such that the distances between the corresponding ends of these subsegments is at most 8\delta +2\kappa. Let A={\rm\bf Lab\, } (a^\prime ), B={\rm\bf Lab\, } (b^\prime ). Then A=CB^{\pm 1}D in G, where \| C\| , \| D\| \le 8\delta +2\kappa <\varepsilon by (Proof). Using this and (Proof), we obtain

if \mu is small enough and \rho is large enough. Since A and B are disjoint subwords of {\rm\bf Lab\, } (\partial \Pi ), this contradicts the C_1 (\varepsilon , \mu,\lambda , c, \rho )–condition.

Case 2. Suppose that \| U\| \le l(q_2)\le 4\| U\| /3, i.e. {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2)\equiv UV for some (may be empty) word V, \|V\|\le \| U\| /3. Note that {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2)={\rm\bf Lab\, }(s_2^{-1}us_1^{-1}) in G_1, hence g={\rm\bf Lab\, }(s_2^{-1}us_1^{-1})V^{-1} in G_1. Since U is the shortest word representing g in G_1, we obtain

Consequently,

On the other hand, using (Proof) we obtain

The later inequality contradicts (Proof) whenever \mu is small enough and \rho is large enough.

Case 3. Suppose that l(q_2)< \| U\|, i.e., {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2) is a subword of U. Again since U is the shortest word representing g in G_1, we have \| {\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2)\| \le \| Q\| for every word Q such that Q={\rm\bf Lab\, } (q_2) in G_1. In particular, for Q\equiv {\rm\bf Lab\, } (s_2^{-1}us_1^{-1}), we obtain

by (Proof). On the other hand, we obviously have \| Q\| \le 2\varepsilon +13\mu l(\partial \Pi )<2\varepsilon +13\mu\rho, which contradicts (Proof) if \mu is small enough and \rho is large enough.

1) Suppose that p=p_1sp_2tp_3, where s and t are two connected components. Passing to another pair of connected components of p if necessary, we may assume that p_2 is a path without backtracking. For definiteness, we also assume that s and t are H_\alpha–components. Let e denote a path of length at most 1 in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) connecting s_+ to t_- and labeled by an element of H_\alpha (see Fig. ?). It follows from our choice of W and the condition H_\alpha \cap H_\beta =\{ 1\} that l(p_2)\ge 2. Thus p_2 contains m\ge l(p_2)/2\ge 1 H_\beta–components, say r_1, \ldots , r_m, and all these components are isolated components of the cycle d=ep_2^{-1}. Let g_1, \ldots , g_m be elements of G represented by the labels of r_1, \ldots , r_m. By Lemma 3.10, g_i\in \langle \Omega \rangle, i=1, \ldots , m. According to (W4), we have

This contradicts Lemma 3.10.

2) Since the set \mathcal {SW} is closed under taking subwords, it suffices to show that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (p_-, p_+)\ge l(p)/3-2. In case l(p)\le 6 this is obvious, so we assume l(p)> 6. Suppose that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (p_-, p_+)< l(p)/3-2. Let c denote a geodesic in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) such that c_-=p_- and c_+=p_+. Since p is a path without backtracking, any H_\alpha–component of p is connected to at most one H_\alpha–component of c. Obviously the path p contains at least l(p)/2-1 H_\alpha–components. Therefore, at least

of them are isolated H_\alpha–components of the cycle pc^{-1}. Let f_1, \ldots , f_k be the elements of G represented by these components. Then as above we have f_i\in \langle \Omega \rangle, i=1, \ldots , k. By (W4), we obtain

This leads to a contradiction again.

We keep the notation introduced in Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.4. Let also

for some (may be trivial) subpaths p_1, \ldots p_{k+1} of p_0.

According to (7.3) and condition c) of Lemma 7.2, we have

Since s_1, \ldots , s_k are subsequent components and {\rm\bf Lab\, } (p_0) is a subword of a cyclic shift of W^{\pm 1}, at most one of the paths p_2, \ldots , p_{k} is non–trivial. Therefore, there are at least 5 subsequent components s_{i}, \ldots , s_{i+4}, such that p_{i+1}, \ldots , p_{i+4} are trivial. Without loss of generality we may assume i=1. Similarly, by Lemma 7.4, we can find at least three subsequent components among t_1, \ldots t_5, say t_1, t_2, t_3, such that (t_1)_+=(t_2)_- and (t_2)_+=(t_3)_-. Let w be an element represented by the label of any path that goes from (t_1)_+=(t_2)_- to (s_1)_+=(s_2)_-. For definiteness we assume that t_1 and s_1 are H_\alpha–components. Since t_1 and s_1 are connected, we have w\in H_\alpha. On the other hand, the H_\beta–components t_2 and s_2 are also connected. Hence w\in H_\beta. Thus w\in H_\alpha \cap H_\beta =\{ 1\}, i.e. the vertices (t_2)_- and (s_2)_- coincide. Similarly the vertices (t_2)_+ and (s_2)_+ coincide. In particular, t_2 and s_2 are edges labeled by the same element of H_\beta, i.e., t_2 and s_2 coincide.

Suppose that a component s of p_0 is connected to a component t of u. Then dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (s_+, t_+)\le 1. Recall that the segment [p_-, s_+] of p is (1/3, 2)–quasi–geodesic by Lemma 7.1. Hence,

However, this contradicts (7.3). Similarly s can not be connected to a component of v.

To prove the first assertion of the lemma we proceed by induction. First let us show that s_1 is not isolated in d=upv^{-1}q^{-1}.

Indeed assume s_1 is isolated in d. Suppose for definiteness that s_1 is an H_\alpha–component. We consider the maximal subpath s of p_0 such that s contains s_1 and all H_\alpha–components of s are isolated in d. By maximality of s, either s_-=(p_0)-, or s_-=r_+ for a certain H_\alpha–component r of p_0 such that r is not isolated in d. (According to Lemma 7.3 this means that r is connected to an H_\alpha–component of q.) In the first case we denote by f_1 the path up_1. In the second case, let f_1 be a path of length \le 1 that connects an H_\alpha–component of q to r. In both cases we have l(f_1)\le 4\varepsilon +6. It follows from the choice of s that no H_\alpha–component of s is connected to an H_\alpha–component of f_1. Similarly we construct a path f_2 such that (f_2)_-\in q, (f_2)_+=s_+, l(f_2)\le 4\varepsilon +6, and no H_\alpha–component of s is connected to an H_\alpha–component of f_2.

Clearly all H_\alpha–components of s are isolated in the cycle c=f_1sf_2^{-1}[(f_2)_-, (f_1)_-], where [(f_2)_-, (f_1)_-] is a segment of q^{\pm 1}. We have

Consequently,

Finally,

Let g_1, \ldots , g_m denote the elements represented by H_\alpha–components of s. Note that l(s)\le 2m+2. Applying Lemma 3.10, we obtain g_i\in \langle \Omega \rangle, i=1, \ldots , m, and

Therefore, at least one of the elements g_1, \ldots , g_m has length at least

that contradicts (W4). Thus s_1 is not isolated in d. By Lemma 7.3 this means that s_1 is connected to an H_\alpha–component t_1 of q.

Now assume that we have already found components t_1, \ldots , t_i of q, 1\le i<k, that are connected to s_1, \ldots , s_i respectively. The inductive step is similar to the above considerations. For definiteness, we assume that s_i is an H_\alpha–component. Then s_{i+1} is an H_\beta–component by the choice of W. We denote by f_1 a path of length \le 1 labeled by an element of H_{\alpha } that connects (t_i)_+ to (s_i)_+ (Fig. Proof). If s_{i+1} is isolated in the cycle c = f_1[(s_i)_+, p_+]v^{-1}[q_+, (t_i)_+], we denote by s the maximal initial subpath of the segment [(s_i)_+, (p_0)_+] of p_0 such that s contains s_{i+1} and all H_\alpha–components of s are isolated in c. As above, we can find a path f_2 such that (f_2)_-\in q, (f_2)_+=s_+, l(f_2)\le 4\varepsilon +6, and no H_\alpha–component of s is connected to an H_\alpha–component of f_2. The inequalities (Proof)–(Proof) remain valid and we arrive at a contradiction in the same way. Thus s_{i+1} is not isolated in c, i.e., it is connected to a component t_{i+1} of the segment [(t_i)_+, q_+] of q. This completes the inductive step.

Let us prove the second assertion of the lemma. Suppose that s_i, s_{i+1} are two subsequent components of p_0 and such that q_{i+1} contains at least one component (say, an H_\alpha–component). As above for definiteness we assume that s_i (respectively s_{i+1}) is an H_\alpha–component (respectively H_\beta–component). Let e_1, e_2 be the paths of lengths \le 1 labeled by elements of H_\alpha and H_\beta respectively such that (e_1)_+=(s_i)_+, (e_1)_-=(q_{i+1})_-, (e_2)_+=(s_{i+1})_-, (e_2)_-=(q_{i+1})_+ (see Fig. ?). As q is a path without backtracking, each H_\alpha–component of q_{i+1} is isolated in the cycle e= q_{i+1} e_2[(s_{i+1})_-, (s_{i})_+]e_1^{-1}, where [(s_{i+1})_-, (s_{i})_+] is a segment of p^{-1}. Notice that l([(s_{i+1})_-, (s_{i})_+])\le 1 as s_i and s_{i+1} are subsequent components of p_0. We denote by f_1, \ldots , f_m the elements represented by H_\alpha–components of q_{i+1}. By Lemma 3.10, we have f_j\in \langle \Omega \rangle, j=1, \ldots , m, and

This contradicts (W4) again.

The first two conditions from Definition 4.2 follow from the choice of W and Lemma 7.1. Suppose that U is an \varepsilon–piece of a word R\in \mathcal {W}. Assume that \max \{ \| U\| , \| U^\prime \| \} \ge \mu \| R\| for \mu = \frac{3\varepsilon +11}{n}, that is,

(Here and below we use the notation of Definitions 4.2 and 4.1.) Without loss of generality we may assume that \| U\| \ge 6\varepsilon +22. By the definition of an \varepsilon–piece, there is a quadrangle upv^{-1}q^{-1} in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) satisfying conditions (a)–(c) of Lemma 7.2 and such that labels of p and q are U and U^\prime respectively.

Let e be the common edge of p and q. Then we have

and

where U_1{\rm\bf Lab\, } (e)U_2\equiv U and U^\prime \equiv U_1^\prime{\rm\bf Lab\, } (e)U_2^\prime. Since {\rm\bf Lab\, } (e) appears in W^{\pm 1} only once, R, R^\prime are cyclic shifts of the same word W^{\pm 1} and

Note also that

in G as Y^{-1}U_1^\prime U_1^{-1} is a label of a cycle in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Therefore, the following equalities hold in the group G:

that contradicts the third condition from Definition 4.2.

Similarly, if U is an \varepsilon ^\prime–piece, then R\equiv UVU^\prime V^\prime for some U, U^\prime ,V, V^\prime, where both subwords U and U^\prime contain a certain letter from X\cup\mathcal H. In this case we arrive at a contradiction again as any letter a\in X\cup\mathcal H appears in R only once, and if a appears in R, then a^{-1} does not.

We set \varepsilon = 2(\kappa + \delta ), where \kappa =\kappa (\delta ,1/3 , 2 ) is the constant provided by Lemma 3.1 and \delta is the hyperbolicity constant of \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). It is convenient to assume that \kappa , \delta \in \mathbb N.

Let \mathcal F=\mathcal F (\varepsilon ) be the set defined by (?). Since \Omega is finite, \mathcal F is finite, and hence there are elements f\in H_\lambda \setminus \mathcal F and g\in H_\mu \setminus \mathcal F of infinite order. In particular,

Note that the word W=(fg)^m satisfies conditions (W1)–(W4). (Here f and g are regarded as letters of \mathcal H.) By Lemma 7.1, for any m\in \mathbb N, the word (fg)^m is (1/3, 2)–quasi–geodesic in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). In particular, fg is a hyperbolic element. Indeed otherwise the length |(fg)^m|_{X\cup \mathcal H} would be bounded uniformly on m.

Now suppose that a\in E_G(fg). Then by Theorem 2.1, a(fg)^ma^{-1}=(fg)^{\pm m } for some m\in \mathbb N. Passing to a multiple of m if necessary, we may assume that

Let a_1b_1a_2b_2 be a quadrangle in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) such that a_1, a_2 are geodesic, the labels {\rm\bf Lab\, } (a_1)={\rm\bf Lab\, } (a_2^{-1}) represent a in G, and {\rm\bf Lab\, } (b_1)={\rm\bf Lab\, } (b_2^{-1})\equiv (fg)^{\pm m}. Let also b_1=b_1^\prime pb_1^{\prime\prime } (Fig. ?), where

As b_1 is (1/3, 2)–quasi–geodesic, we have

Further by Corollary 3.3, there is a point s\in a_1\cup b_2\cup a_2 such that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (s, p_-)\le 2(\kappa +\delta ). If s\in a_1, then we have

that contradicts (Proof). For the same reason s can not belong to a_2. Thus s\in b_2. Without loss of generality, we may assume that s is a vertex of \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H). Similarly there exists a vertex t\in b_2 such that dist_{X\cup\mathcal H} (t, p_+)\le 2(\kappa +\delta ). Let u,v be geodesics in \Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H) connecting s to p_- and t to p_+ respectively and let q denote the segment [s,t] of b_2^{-1}.

According to (Proof) and (Proof), we have

Hence we may apply Lemma 7.2 for the quadrangle upv^{-1}q^{-1} and \varepsilon =2(\kappa +\delta ). Thus there exists a common edge e of p and q. In particular, this and (Proof) imply that a(fg)^ma^{-1}=(fg)^{m } (not (fg)^{-m}).

There are two possibilities for labels of the segments [(b_1)_-, e_-] and [(b_2)_+, e_-] of b_1 and b_2^{-1} respectively. Namely both these labels are either of the form (fg)^n (possibly for different n) or of the form (fg)^kf. In both cases a=(fg)^l for a certain l as labels of a_1 and [(b_2)_+, e_-][(b_1)_-, e_-]^{-1} represent the same element of G. Thus a\in \langle fg \rangle and E_G(fg)=\langle fg\rangle.

By the well-known consequence of the Euler Formula, every simple planar graph contains a vertex of degree at most 5. The statement of the lemma easily follows from this by induction.

Let v,e,f denote the number of vertices, edges, and regions of (the planar realization of) \Phi _{\mathcal M}^\prime, respectively. By (\ast), every region of it (except possibly for the outer one) has degree at least three. Hence f\le 2e/3+1. By the Euler formula, we have e\le v+f-2\le v + 2e/3-1. This implies e\le 3(v-1)\le 3(n+3)\le 12 n.

Since unbound arcs of boundaries of \mathcal R-cells and sections of \partial \Delta are separated by contiguity arcs, the total number of arcs of type (A1) or (A2) in \Delta is not greater than

Clearly the number of arcs of type (A3) is at most 2|\mathcal M|=2e \le 24n. So the total number of arcs of types (A1)-(A3) is at most 53n.

Let S_i denote the sum of lengths of all arcs of type (A1) in \partial \Delta _i, i=1, \ldots , d. Assume that S\ge n\sqrt{\rho }. Then

for some i. Indeed otherwise we have

By Lemma 9.3.

For every i=1, \ldots , d, the diagram \Delta _i has at most n_i holes. Hence we can cut it by l\le n_i paths t_1, \ldots, t_l into a simply connected diagram \widetilde{\Delta _i}. We assume that the collection of cutting paths t_1, \ldots , t_l is chosen so that the sum \sum\limits_{i=1}^l l(t_i) is minimal. The boundary of \widetilde{\Delta _i} decomposes into k_i subpaths, each of which is either t_j^{\pm 1} for some j=1, \ldots , l, or an arc of one of the types (A1)-(A3) (or a part of such an arc arising after cutting along t_1, \ldots , t_l). Therefore,

Note also that passing to a diagram which is \mathcal O-equivalent to \Delta if necessary, we may assume that the labels of t_i’s are geodesic in G without loss of generality. Indeed if w_i is a geodesic word representing the same element as {\rm\bf Lab\, } (t_i) in G, let \Sigma _i be a diagram over (?) with boundary label w_i({\rm\bf Lab\, } (t_i))^{-1}. Further let \Xi _i be the diagram obtained by gluing \Sigma _i and its mirror copy along w_i. Clearly {\rm\bf Lab\, } \partial (\Xi_i)={\rm\bf Lab\, } (t_i)({\rm\bf Lab\, } (t_i))^{-1}. We can use 0-refinement (see the subsection “Van Kampen diagrams" in Section 3) to create a copy t_i^\prime of the paths t_i in \Delta with the same label and endpoints such that t_i(t_i^\prime )^{-1} bounds a subdiagram consisting of 0-cells. Further we cut this subdiagram and fill in the obtained hole with \Xi_i. After this transformation, the vertices (t_i)_- and (t_i)_+ are connected by a path whose label w_i is geodesic in G, and we can replace t_i with that paths. Note that this transformation does not affect \partial \Delta, \mathcal R-cells, and distinguished \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams.

Similarly we may assume that for every (sub)arc p of an arc of type (A1)-(A3) in \partial \widetilde{\Delta _i}, the diagram \widetilde{\Delta _i} contains a path \bar p with the same endpoints as p such that {\rm\bf Lab\, } (\bar p) is geodesic in G and p(\bar p)^{-1} bounds a subdiagram over (?). Since \widetilde{\Delta _i} is a simply connected diagram over (?), its 1-skeleton can be naturally mapped to \Gamma (G, \mathcal A) by a map preserving labels and orientation. In what follows we keep the same notation t_i^{\pm 1}, p, etc., for the images of the paths t_i^{\pm 1}, p, etc., in \Gamma (G, \mathcal A) (although t_i^{-1} is not the inverse path of t_i there). In particular, p and \bar p belong to the closed \kappa-neighborhoods of each other in \Gamma (G, \mathcal A) by Lemma 3.1.

In the notation of Lemma 3.7, let N_2 consist of images of segments t_i^{\pm 1}, i=1, \ldots , l, in \Gamma (G, \mathcal A) and images of \bar p for (sub)arcs p of type (A2). Further let N_1 and N_3 consist of images of \bar p for (sub)arcs p of type (A1) and (A3), respectively.

Clearly \sigma _3\le \varepsilon k_i. On the other hand, by (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain

Taking large enough \rho, we may assume that a=\lambda \sqrt{\rho } /240 - c>\max\{ 1000\varepsilon , c_2\}. Hence by Lemma 3.7, there exist subsegments \bar q_j, j=1,2, of some \bar p_1\in N_1 and \bar p_2\in N_1\cup N_2, respectively, such that l(p_j)\ge 10^{-3} a, j=1,2, and the distance between the respective endpoints of p_1 and p_2 is at most c_1. This means that there exist subsegments q_j of p_j, j=1,2, of lengths at least 10^{-3}a -2\kappa such that

The later inequality uses (?). Now there are two cases to consider.

Case 1. \bar p_2\in N_1. That is, q_1 and q_2 are subpaths of boundaries of some \mathcal R-cells in \Delta. After passing to an \mathcal O-equivalent diagram if necessary, we may assume that there exists a subdiagram \Gamma of \Delta such that \partial \Gamma =q_1s_1q_2^{-1}s_2, where l(s_j)<\varepsilon, j=1,2, and \Gamma does not intersect \mathcal R-cells and distinguished \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams. This contradicts the maximality of \mathcal M.

Case 2. \bar p_2\in N_2. If q_2 is a subpaths of \partial \Delta, we get a contradiction as above by constructing a new \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram of an \mathcal R–cell to \partial \Delta. Thus we only need to deal with the case p_2=t_j^{\pm 1}. Without loss of generality, we may assume that p_2=t_j. Let t_j=uq_2v. By (Proof), after passing to an \mathcal O-equivalent diagram if necessary, we can find a paths s of lengths at most \varepsilon in \Delta connecting (q_2)_- to (q_1)_- (see Fig. Proof). Note that

if \rho is large enough. This contradicts our assumption that \sum\limits_{i=1}^l l(t_i) is minimal.

Thus in both cases we obtain a contradiction. Hence S< n\sqrt{\rho }.

For each \mathcal R-cell \Pi of \Delta, we assign the weight \nu (o)=l(\partial \Pi ) to the corresponding vertex o of the estimating graph \Phi _\mathcal M. Clearly the sum of weights of all vertices in \Phi _\mathcal M equals \Sigma. Further let \Gamma \in \mathcal M be a distinguished \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram with \partial \Gamma =s_1q_1s_2q_2, where q_1, q_2 are the contiguity arcs. We assign the weight \nu (e)= l(q_1)+l(q_2) to the edge e corresponding to \Gamma. Note that the sum of weights of all edges in \Gamma \in \mathcal M is equal to the sum of lengths \Sigma _{inn} of all inner arcs in \Delta.

By Lemma 4.3, \nu (e)\le 2\mu \nu (o) whenever o and e are incident. Hence \Sigma _{inn}\le 10\mu\Sigma by Lemma 9.1 and (\ast). By Lemma 9.4, we have S<\Sigma /\sqrt{\rho }, where S is the sum of lengths of all unbound arcs, since the perimeter of every \mathcal R-cell in \Delta is at least \rho by the C(\varepsilon , \mu , \lambda , c, \rho )-condition. Therefore,

if \rho >\mu ^{-2}.

We proceed by induction on n, the number of \mathcal R-cells in \Delta.

(a) Suppose that there are multiple edges in \Phi _{\mathcal M}. That is, there are two distinguished \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams \Theta _1 and \Theta _2 between some \mathcal R-cells \Pi _1 and \Pi _2. Consider a subdiagram \Xi in \Delta such that: (i) \partial \Xi =s_1t_1s_2t_2, where s_j is a side arc of \Theta _j and t_j is a subpaths of \partial \Pi _j, j=1,2; (ii) \Xi does not contain \Pi _1 and \Pi _2. By the definition of \mathcal M, we can not include \Theta _1 and \Theta _2 into a single \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram of \Pi _1 to \Pi _2. This means that \Xi contains at least one \mathcal R-cell. On the other hand, the number of \mathcal R-cells in \Xi is smaller than n according to (ii). Hence by the inductive assumption, there is an \mathcal R-cell \Pi in \Xi and \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams \Gamma _1, \ldots , \Gamma _4 of \Pi to s_1, t_1, s_2, t_2, respectively, such that

On the other hand (\Pi ,\Gamma _2, t_1)+(\Pi ,\Gamma _4, t_2)<2\mu by Lemma 4.3 since \Gamma _2 and \Gamma _4 are \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams of \Pi to \Pi _1 and \Pi _2, respectively. Further if u is a contiguity arc of \Pi to s_1, then l(u)\le \lambda ^{-1} (3\varepsilon +c) since u is (\lambda , c) quasi-geodesic and l(s_1)\le \varepsilon. Therefore, (\Pi, \Gamma _1, s_1)=l(u)/l(\partial \Pi )<l(u)/\rho < \mu/2 if \rho is large enough. Similarly (\Pi, \Gamma _3, s_2)<\mu /2. Thus

We obtain a contradiction since 1-13\mu >3\mu for \mu < 1/16.

Thus the graph \Phi _{\mathcal M} does not have multiple edges. Arguing as above, it is easy to show that \Phi _{\mathcal M} can not contain loops either. The only difference is that the subdiagram \Xi will be bounded by st, where l(s)<\varepsilon and t is a subpaths of \partial \Pi_1. (Here \Pi _1 is the \mathcal R-cell of \Delta such that there is a lop incident to the corresponding vertex in \Phi _{\mathcal M}.)

Finally inside every 2-gon ef of \Phi _{\mathcal M}^\prime there is a vertex of \Phi _{\mathcal M} since otherwise one can include the \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams corresponding to the edges e and f of \Phi _{\mathcal M}^\prime into a single \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram in the obvious way, contrary to the definition of \mathcal M.

(b) By (a), we can choose an \mathcal R-cell \Pi in \Delta (passing to an \mathcal O-equivalent diagram if necessary) and subdiagrams \Gamma _{i,j} satisfying the inequality in Corollary 9.6. Let us consider the subdiagram \Gamma ^1 of \Delta such that: (i) \partial \Gamma ^1=s_1t_1s_2t_2, where s_1, s_2 are side arcs of some of \Gamma_{i,1}’s and t_1, t_2 are subpaths of \partial \Pi and the section q_1 of \partial \Delta, respectively; (ii) \Gamma ^1 contains all \Gamma _{i, 1}’s. Let m_1 be the number of \mathcal R-cells in \Gamma ^1. We similarly construct \Gamma^2, \ldots , \Gamma ^r and define m_2, \ldots , m_r.

Suppose that the cell \Pi is chosen in such a way that the sum m(\Pi )=m_1+\ldots + m_r is minimal among all cells satisfying the condition \sum\limits_{i,j} (\Pi, \Gamma _{i,j}, q_j)>1-11\mu. If m_1=\cdots =m_r=0, then each of the sets \{ \Gamma _i,1\}, \ldots, \{ \Gamma _i,1\} consists of at most one diagram. Indeed otherwise one could include at least 2 of them into a single \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram, which contradicts the definition of \mathcal M.

Thus we may assume that m_1>0. Then by Corollary 9.6 and the inductive assumption, the subdiagram \Gamma ^1 contains an \mathcal R-cell \Pi ^\prime and \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams \Gamma ^\prime_{i,1} , \ldots , \Gamma ^\prime _{i, 4} of \Pi^\prime to s_1, t_1, s_2, t_2, respectively, such that

Note that k_2\le 1 since all \Gamma ^\prime_{i,2}’s are \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagrams of \Pi ^\prime to \Pi and \Delta satisfies (\ast) by (a). If k_2=1, we have (\Pi^\prime, \Gamma ^\prime _{1,2}, t_1)<\mu by Lemma 4.3. Further if k_1\ge 1, we can construct an \varepsilon-contiguity subdiagram \Gamma of \Pi ^\prime to t_1 such that: (i) \partial \Gamma =st, where l(s)\le 3\varepsilon and t is a subpaths of \partial \Pi ^\prime; (ii) \Gamma contains at least one \mathcal R-cell. This leads to a contradiction as in part (a). Thus k_1\le 1 and if k_1=1 we obtain (\Pi ^\prime, \Gamma ^\prime _{i,1}, s_1)<\mu /2 as in part (a). Similarly k_3\le 1 and if k_3=1, we have (\Pi^\prime, \Gamma ^\prime _{i,3}, s_2)<\mu /2. These inequalities together with (Proof) imply \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k_4} (\Pi^\prime, \Gamma ^\prime _{i,4}, t_2) >1-13\mu. However m(\Pi ^\prime )<m(\Pi ) since the cell \Pi ^\prime counts in m (\Pi ) but not in m(\Pi ^\prime ). This contradicts the choice of \Pi.