Abstract
The degree of commutativity of a finite group is the probability that two uniformly and randomly chosen elements commute. This notion extends naturally to finitely generated groups G: the degree of commutativity \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)\), with respect to a given finite generating set S, results from considering the fractions of commuting pairs of elements in increasing balls around \(1_G\) in the Cayley graph . We focus on restricted wreath products of the form \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), where \(H \ne 1\) is finitely generated and the top group \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) is infinite cyclic. In accordance with a more general conjecture, we show that \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G) = 0\) for such groups G, regardless of the choice of S. This extends results of Cox who considered lamplighter groups with respect to certain kinds of generating sets. We also derive a generalisation of Cox’s main auxiliary result: in ‘reasonably large’ homomorphic images of wreath products G as above, the image of the base group has density zero, with respect to certain types of generating sets.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let G be a finitely generated group, with finite generating set S. For \(n \in \mathbb {N}_0\), let \(B_S(n) = B_{G,S}(n)\) denote the ball of radius n in the Cayley graph of G with respect to S. Following Antolín, Martino and Ventura [1], we define the degree of commutativity of G with respect to S as
We remark that this notion can be viewed as a special instance of a more general concept, where the degree of commutativity is defined with respect to ‘reasonable’ sequences of probability measures on G, as discussed in a preliminary arXiv-version of [1] or, in more detail, by Tointon in [13].
If G is finite, the invariant \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)\) does not depend on the particular choice of S, as the balls stabilise and \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}(G) = {{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)\) simply gives the probability that two uniformly and randomly chosen elements of G commute. This situation was studied already by Erdős and Turán [4], and further results were obtained by various authors over the years; for example, see [5, 6, 8, 9, 11]. For infinite groups G, it is generally not known whether \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)\) is independent of the particular choice of S.
The degree of commutativity is naturally linked to the following concept of density, which is employed, for instance, in [2]. The density of a subset \(X\subseteq G\) with respect to S is
If the group G has sub-exponential word growth, then the density function \(\delta _S\) is bi-invariant; compare with [2, Proposition 2.3]. Based on this fact, the following can be proved, initially for residually finite groups and then without this additional restriction, even in the more general context of suitable sequences of probability measures; see [1, Theorem 1.3] and [13, Theorems 1.6 and 1.17].
Theorem 1.1
(Antolín, Martino and Ventura [1]; Tointon [13]) Let G be a finitely generated group of sub-exponential word growth, and let S be a finite generating set of G. Then \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G) > 0\) if and only if G is virtually abelian. Moreover, \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)\) does not depend on the particular choice of S.
The situation is far less clear for groups of exponential word growth. In this context, the following conjecture was raised in [1].
Conjecture 1.2
(Antolín, Martino and Ventura [1]) Let G be a finitely generated group of exponential word growth and let S be a finite generating set of G. Then, \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)=0\), irrespective of the choice of S.
In [1] the conjecture was already confirmed for non-elementary hyperbolic groups, and Valiunas [14] confirmed it for right-angled Artin groups (and more general graph products of groups) with respect to certain generating sets. Furthermore, Cox [3] showed that the conjecture holds, with respect to selected generating sets, for (generalised) lamplighter groups, that is for restricted standard wreath products of the form \(G = F \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), where \(F \ne 1\) is finite and \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) is an infinite cyclic group. Wreath products of such a shape are basic examples of groups of exponential word growth; in Sect. 2 we briefly recall the wreath product construction, here we recall that \(G = N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) with base group \(N = \bigoplus _{i \in \mathbb {Z}} F^{t^i}\). In the present paper, we make a significant step forward in two directions, by confirming Conjecture 1.2 for an even wider class of restricted standard wreath products and with respect to arbitrary generating sets.
Theorem A
Let \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) be the restricted wreath product of a finitely generated group \(H \ne 1\) and an infinite cyclic group \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \). Then G has degree of commutativity \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)=0\), for every finite generating set S of G.
One of the key ideas in [3] is to reduce the desired conclusion \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G) = 0\), for the wreath products \(G = N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) under consideration, to the claim that the base group N has density \(\delta _S(N) =0\) in G. We proceed in a similar way and derive Theorem A from the following density result, which constitutes our main contribution.
Theorem B
Let \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) be the restricted wreath product of a finitely generated group H and an infinite cyclic group \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \). Then the base group \(N = \bigoplus _{i\in \mathbb {Z}} H^{t^i}\) has density \(\delta _S(N)=0\) in G, for every finite generating set S of G.
The limitation in [3] to special generating sets S of lamplighter groups G is due to the fact that the arguments used there rely on explicit minimal length expressions for elements \(g\in G\) with respect to S. If one restricts to generating sets which allow control over minimal length expressions in a similar, but somewhat weaker way, it is, in fact, possible to simplify and generalise the analysis considerably. In this way we arrive at the following improvement of the results in [3, Section 2.2], for homomorphic images of wreath products.
Theorem C
Let G be a finitely generated group of exponential word growth of the form \(G= N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), where
-
(a)
the subgroup \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) is infinite cyclic;
-
(b)
the normal subgroup \(N = \bigl \langle \hspace{0.55542pt}\bigcup \hspace{1.111pt}\{ H^{t^i} {|}\, i \in \mathbb {Z} \} \bigr \rangle \) is generated by the \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \)-conjugates of a finitely generated subgroup H of N;
-
(c)
the \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \)-conjugates of this group H commute elementwise: \( [H^{t^i}\!, H^{t^j} ] = 1\) for all \(i, j \in \mathbb {Z}\) with \(H^{t^i}\! \ne H^{t^j}\).
Suppose further that \(S_0\) is a finite generating set for H and that the exponential growth rates of H with respect to \(S_0\) and of G with respect to \(S = S_0 \cup \{\hspace{1.111pt}t \}\) satisfy
Then N has density \(\delta _S(N)=0\) in G with respect to S.
For finitely generated groups G of sub-exponential word growth, the density of a subgroup of infinite index, such as N in \(G = N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) with \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \), is always 0; see [2]. Thus Theorem C has the following consequence.
Corollary 1.3
Let \(G = A \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) be a finitely generated group, where A is abelian and \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \). Then A has density \(\delta _S(A) = 0\) in G, with respect to any finite generating set of G that takes the form \(S = S_0 \cup \{t\}\) with \(S_0 \subseteq A\).
Next we give a very simple concrete example to illustrate that the technical condition (1.1) in Theorem C is not redundant: the situation truly differs from the one for groups of sub-exponential word growth. It is not difficult to craft more complex examples.
Example 1.4
Let \(G = F \hspace{1.111pt}{\times }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t\rangle \), where \(F = \langle x,y \rangle \) is the free group on two generators and \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \). Then F has density \(\delta _S(F) = 1/2 > 0\) in G for the ‘obvious’ generating set \(S=\{ x,y,t \}\).
Indeed, for every \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\) we have
and hence, for all \(n \in \mathbb {N}\),
and
This yields
We remark that in this example F and G have the same exponential growth rates:
Furthermore, the argument carries through without any obstacles with any finite generating set \(S_0\) of F in place of \(\{x,y\}\).
Finally, we record an open question that suggests itself rather naturally.
Question 1.5
Let G be a finitely generated group such that \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G) >0\) with respect to a finite generating set S. Does it follow that there exists an abelian subgroup \(A \leqslant G\) such that \(\delta _S(A) >0\)?
For groups G of sub-exponential word growth the answer is “yes”, as one can see by an easy argument from Theorem 1.1. An affirmative answer for groups of exponential word growth could be a step towards establishing Conjecture 1.2 or provide a pathway to a possible alternative outcome. At a heuristic level, an affirmative answer to Question 1.5 would fit well with the results in [12, 13].
Notation
Our notation is mostly standard. For a set X, we denote by its power set. For elements g, h of a group G, we write \(g^h=h^{-1}gh\) and \([g,h] = g^{-1} g^h\) in line with our preferred use of right actions. For a finite generating set S of G, we denote by \(l_S(g)\) the length of g with respect to S, i.e., the distance between g and 1 in the corresponding Cayley graph so that
Given \(a,b \in \mathbb {R}\) and \(T \subseteq \mathbb {R}\), we write \([a,b]_T = \{ x \in T \,{|}\, a \leqslant x \leqslant b \}\); for instance, \([-2,\sqrt{2}]_\mathbb {Z} = \{-2,-1,0,1\}\). We repeatedly compare the limiting behaviour of real-valued functions defined on cofinite subsets of \(\mathbb {N}_0\) which are eventually non-decreasing and take positive values. For this purpose we employ the conventional Landau symbols; specifically we write, for functions f, g of the described type,
As customary, we use suggestive short notation such as, for instance, \(f \in o(\log n)\) in place of \(f \in o(g)\) for \(g :\mathbb {N}_{\geqslant 2} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), \(n \mapsto \log n \).
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we collect preliminary and auxiliary results. Furthermore, we briefly recall the wreath product construction and establish basic notation.
2.1 Groups of exponential word growth
We concern ourselves with groups of exponential word growth. These are finitely generated groups G such that for any finite generating set S of G, the exponential growth rate
of G with respect to S satisfies \(\lambda _S(G) > 1\). Since the word growth sequence \(\vert B_S(n) \vert \), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), is submultiplicative, i.e.,
the limit in (2.1) exists and is equal to the infimum as stated, by Fekete’s lemma [7, Corollary VI.57]. We will use the following basic estimates:
and, for each \(\varepsilon \in \mathbb {R}_{>0}\),
In the proof of Theorem C, the following two auxiliary results are used.
Lemma 2.1
For each \(\alpha \in [0,1]_\mathbb {R}\), the sequences \(\root n \of {\left( {\begin{array}{c}n+ \lceil \alpha n \rceil \\ \lceil \alpha n\rceil \end{array}}\right) }\) and \(\root n \of {\left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ \lceil \alpha n\rceil \end{array}}\right) }\), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), converge, and furthermore
Consequently, if \(f :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{>0}\) satisfies \(f\in o(n)\), then the sequence \(\left( {\begin{array}{c}n +\lceil f(n)\rceil \\ \lceil f(n)\rceil \end{array}}\right) \), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), grows sub-exponentially in n, viz. \(\root n \of {\left( {\begin{array}{c}n+\lceil f(n)\rceil \\ \lceil f(n)\rceil \end{array}}\right) } \rightarrow 1\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \).
Proof
For each \(\alpha \in [0,1]_\mathbb {R}\), Stirling’s approximation for factorials yields
i.e., the ratio of the left-hand term to the right-hand term tends to 1 as n tends to infinity. Moreover, for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\),
and similarly
This shows that
Since \(\lim _{\alpha \rightarrow 0^+} \alpha ^\alpha = 1\), we conclude that
A similar computation yields that the second sequence \(\root n \of {\left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ \lceil \alpha n\rceil \end{array}}\right) }\), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), converges. Again directly, or by virtue of
we conclude that also the second limit, for \(\alpha \rightarrow 0^+\), is equal to 1. \(\square \)
Proposition 2.2
Let G be a finitely generated group of exponential word growth, with finite generating set S. Then there exists a non-decreasing unbounded function \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}\) such that \(q \in o(n)\) and
Proof
We put \(\lambda = \lambda _S(G) > 1\) and write \(\vert B_S(n) \vert = \lambda ^{\sum _{i=1}^n b_i}\), with \(b_i \in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}\) for \(i \in \mathbb {N}\), so that the sequence \(\sum _{i=1}^n b_i\), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), is subadditive and
In this notation, we seek a non-decreasing unbounded function \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}\) such that, simultaneously,
We show below that for every \(m \in \mathbb {N}\),
From this we see that there is an increasing sequence of non-positive integers c(m), \(m \in \mathbb {N}\), such that, for each m,
Setting \(q_1(n) = \lfloor n/m \rfloor \) for \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) with \(c(m) \leqslant n < c(m+1)\) and
we arrive at a function \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 1}\) meeting the requirements (2.2).
It remains to establish (2.3). Let \(m \in \mathbb {N}\) and put \(\varepsilon = \varepsilon _m = (6\,m)^{-1}\! \in \mathbb {R}_{>0}\). We choose \(N = N_\varepsilon \in \mathbb {N}\) minimal subject to
In the following we deal repeatedly with sums of the form
for \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), and using subadditivity, we obtain
We consider \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) with \(n \geqslant (1+\varepsilon )\hspace{1.111pt}\varepsilon ^{-1} N \geqslant N\) and write \(n = l N + r\) with \(l = l_n \in \mathbb {N}\) and \(r = r_n \in [0,N-1]_\mathbb {Z}\). Furthermore, we set
From our set-up, we deduce that
hence \(t \geqslant 1-3\varepsilon \) and consequently
Since
this gives
which tends to infinity as \(l \rightarrow \infty \). This proves (2.3). \(\square \)
In [10, Lemma 2.2], Pittet seems to claim that
from which Proposition 2.2 could be derived much more easily. However, we found the explanations in [10] not fully conclusive and thus opted to work out an independent argument. Naturally, it would be interesting to establish a more effective version of Proposition 2.2, if possible.
2.2 Wreath products
We recall that a group \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}K\) is the restricted standard wreath product of two subgroups H and K, if it decomposes as a semidirect product \(G = N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}K\), where the normal closure of H is the direct sum \(N = \bigoplus _{k \in K} H^k\) of the various conjugates of H by elements of K; the groups N and K are referred to as the base group and the top group of the wreath product G, respectively. Since we do not consider complete standard wreath products or more general types of permutational wreath products, we shall drop the terms “restricted” and “standard” from now on.
Throughout the rest of this section, let
be the wreath product of a finitely generated subgroup H and an infinite cyclic subgroup \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \cong C_\infty \). Every element \(g \in G\) can be written uniquely in the form
where \(\rho (g) \in \mathbb {Z}\) and \(\widetilde{g} = \prod \nolimits _{i \in \mathbb {Z}} (g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i})^{\, t^i}\!\! \in N\) with ‘coordinates’ \(g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} \in H\). The support of the product decomposition of \(\widetilde{g}\) is finite and we write
Furthermore, it is convenient to fix a finite symmetric generating set S of G; thus \(G = \langle S \rangle \), and \(g \in S\) implies \(g^{-1} \in S\). We put \(d = \vert S\vert \) and fix an ordering of the elements of S:
where \(\widetilde{s_1}, \ldots , \widetilde{s_d} \in N\). We write \(r_S = \max \hspace{1.111pt}\{ \rho (s_j) \,{|}\, j \in [1,d]_\mathbb {Z} \} \in \mathbb {N}\).
Definition 2.3
An S-expression of an element \(g \in G\) is (induced by) a word \(W = \prod _{k=1}^l X_{\iota (k)}\) in the free semigroup \(\langle X_1, \ldots , X_d \rangle \) such that
here W determines and is determined by the function \(\iota = \iota _W :[1,l]_\mathbb {Z} \rightarrow [1,d]_\mathbb {Z}\). In this situation the standard process of collecting powers of t to the right yields
where \(\sigma = \sigma _{S,W}\) is short for the negativeFootnote 1 cumulative exponent function
We define the itinerary of g associated to the S-expression (2.6) as the pair
and we say that \(\textrm{It}\hspace{0.55542pt}(S,W)\) has length l, viz. the length of the word W. For the purpose of concrete calculations it is helpful to depict the functions \(\iota _{W}\) and \(\sigma _{S, W}\) as finite sequences. The term ‘itinerary’ refers to (2.7), which indicates how g can be built stepwise from the sequences \(\iota _W\) and \(\sigma _{S,W}\); see Example 2.4 below. In particular, g is uniquely determined by the itinerary \(\textrm{It}\hspace{0.55542pt}(S,W) = (\hspace{1.111pt}\iota ,\sigma )\) and, accordingly, we refer to g as the element corresponding to that itinerary. But unless G is trivial and S is empty, the element g has, of course, infinitely many S-expressions which in turn give rise to infinitely many distinct itineraries of one and the same element.
For discussing features of the exponent function \(\sigma _{S,W}\), we call
the maximal and minimal itinerary points of \(\textrm{It}\hspace{0.55542pt}(S,W)\). Later we fix a representative function , \(g \mapsto W_g\) which yields for each element of G an S-expression of shortest possible length. In that situation we suppress the reference to S and refer to
as the -itinerary, the maximal -itinerary point and the minimal -itinerary point of any given element g.
To illustrate the terminology we discuss a concrete example.
Example 2.4
A typical example of the wreath products that we consider is the lamplighter group
where \(a_i = t^{-i} a t^i\) for \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\). We consider the finite symmetric generating set
with
Let \(g =\widetilde{g} \, t^{3}\) be such that \(g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} = a\) for \(i \in \{-1,1,2,6\}\) and \(g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} = 1\) otherwise. Then we have \(\rho (g) = 3\), \(\textrm{supp}\hspace{0.55542pt}(g) = \{-1,1,2,6\}\), and
is an S-expression for g of length 9, based on \(W = X_2 X_5 X_1 X_4^{\, 2} X_5 X_4 X_5 X_4\). The itinerary \(I = \textrm{It}\hspace{0.55542pt}(S,W)\) associated to this S-expression for g is
where we have written the maps \(\iota \) and \(\sigma \) in sequence notation. Furthermore, we see that \(\textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) = 5\) and \(\textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) = -3\). Figure 1 gives a pictorial description of part of the information contained in I.
An alternative S-expression for the same element g is
It has length 18 and is based on the semigroup word
In this case, the itinerary associated to the S-expression (2.10) is
and we observe that \(\textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I') = 6\) and \(\textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I') = -4.\)
There is a natural notion of a product of two itineraries, and it has the expected properties. We collect the precise details in a lemma.
LemmaandDefinition 2.5
In the general set-up described above, suppose that \(I_1 = (\hspace{1.111pt}\iota _1, \sigma _1)\) and \(I_2 = (\hspace{1.111pt}\iota _2, \sigma _2)\) are itineraries, of lengths \(l_1\) and \(l_2\), associated to S-expressions \(W_1, W_2\) for elements \(g_1, g_2 \in G\). Then \(W = W_1W_2\) is an S-expression for \(g = g_1g_2\); the associated itinerary
has length \(l = l_1 + l_2\) and its components are given by
We refer to I as the product itinerary and write \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2\).
Conversely, if I is the itinerary of some element \(g\in G\) associated to some S-expression of length l and if \(l_1 \in [0,l]_\mathbb {Z}\), there is a unique decomposition \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2\) for itineraries \(I_1\) of length \(l_1\) and \(I_2\) of length \(l_2 = l-l_1\); the corresponding elements \(g_1, g_2 \in G\) satisfy \(g = g_1 g_2\).
Proof
The assertions in the first paragraph are easy to verify from
and the observation that, for \(k \in [0,l]_\mathbb {Z}\),
Conversely, let I be the itinerary of an element g, associated to some S-expression \(W = \prod _{k=1}^l X_{\iota (k)}\) of length l, and let \(l_1 \in [0,l]_\mathbb {Z}\). Then W decomposes uniquely as a product \(W_1 W_2\) of semigroup words of lengths \(l_1\) and \(l-l_2\), namely for \(W_1 =\prod _{k=1}^{l_1} X_{\iota (k)}\) and \(W_2 = \prod _{k=l_1+1}^{l} X_{\iota (k)}\). These are S-expressions for elements \(g_1, g_2\) and \(g = g_1 g_2\). Moreover, \(W_1\) and \(W_2\) give rise to itineraries \(I_1, I_2\) such that \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2\). Since \(W_1\) and \(I_1\), respectively \(W_2\) and \(I_2\), determine one another uniquely, the decomposition \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2\) is unique. \(\square \)
For a representative function , \(g \mapsto W_g\), as discussed in Definition 2.3, it is typically not the case that \(W_{gh} = W_g W_h\) for \(g,h \in G\). Consequently, it is typically not true that .
Lemma 2.6
Let \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) be a wreath product as in (2.4), with generating set S as in (2.5). Put
Then the following hold:
-
(i)
For every \(g \in G\) with itinerary I,
$$\begin{aligned} \textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) - C< \min \hspace{1.111pt}(\textrm{supp}\hspace{0.55542pt}(g)) \quad \text {and} \quad \max \hspace{1.111pt}(\textrm{supp}\hspace{0.55542pt}(g)) < \textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) + C. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
Let \(u \in H\). Put \(m_S = \max \hspace{1.111pt}\{ C, r_S \} \in \mathbb {N}\) and
$$\begin{aligned} D = D(S,u) = l_S(u) + 2 \max \hspace{1.111pt}\bigl \{\hspace{1.111pt}l_S (\hspace{1.111pt}t^j ) \mid 0 \leqslant j \leqslant m_S + r_S \bigr \} \in \mathbb {N}. \end{aligned}$$Let \(g \in G\) with itinerary I, associated to an S-expression of length \(l_S(g)\). Then, for every \(j \in \mathbb {Z}\) with \(\textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) - m_S \leqslant j \leqslant \textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) + m_S\), the elements \(h = g u^{t^{j+\rho (g)}}\!\), \(\hbar = u^{t^j} \!g \in G\) satisfy \(\rho (h) = \rho (\hbar ) = \rho (g)\) and the ‘coordinates’ of h, \(\hbar \) are given by
$$\begin{aligned} h_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \,g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} &{} \quad \text {if}\;\; i \ne j, \\ \,g_{\vert j} \, u &{} \quad \text {if}\;\; i = j, \end{array}\right. } \quad \hbar _{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \, g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i} &{} \quad \text {if}\;\; i \ne j, \\ \, u \, g_{\vert j} &{} \quad \text {if}\;\; i = j \end{array}\right. } \quad \text {for}\;\;i \in \mathbb {Z}. \end{aligned}$$Furthermore,
$$\begin{aligned} l_S(h) \leqslant l_S(g) + D \quad \text {and} \quad l_S(\hbar ) \leqslant l_S(g) + D. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
We write \(I = (\hspace{1.111pt}\iota ,\sigma )\) for the given itinerary of g, and l denotes the length of I.
(i) From (2.7) it follows that
from this inclusion the two inequalities follow readily.
(ii) In addition we now have \(l = l_S(g)\). The first assertions are very easy to verify. We justify the upper bound for \(l_S(h)\); the bound for \(l_S(\hbar )\) is derived similarly.
Since \(\textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) - m_S \leqslant j \leqslant \textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I) + m_S\) and since itineraries proceed, in the second coordinate, by steps of length at most \(r_S \leqslant m_S\), there exists \(k \in [0,l]_\mathbb {Z}\) such that \(\vert j - \sigma (k)\vert \leqslant m_S\). If \(\vert j - \sigma (l)\vert \leqslant m_S\) we put \(k = l-1\); otherwise we choose k maximal with \(\vert j - \sigma (k)\vert \leqslant m_S\). Next we decompose the itinerary I as the product \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2\) of itineraries \(I_1\) of length \(l_1 = k+1\) and \(I_2\) of length \(l_2 = l-k-1\); compare with Lemma 2.5.
We denote by \(g_1 = \widetilde{g_1} t^{-\sigma (k+1)}\) and \(g_2 = \widetilde{g_2} t^{\sigma (k+1)+\rho (g)}\) the elements corresponding to \(I_1\) and \(I_2\) so that \(g = g_1 g_2 = \widetilde{g_1} \widetilde{g_2}^{t^{\sigma (k+1)}} t^{\rho (g)}\). Moreover, we observe from \(\vert j - \sigma (k+1) \vert \leqslant m_S+r_S\) that
has length \(l_3 \leqslant l_S(u) + 2\, l_S ( t^{j-\sigma (k+1)} ) \leqslant D\). Our choice of k guarantees that the support of \(\widetilde{g_2}^{\, t^{\sigma (k+1)}}\) does not overlap with \(\{j\} = \textrm{supp}\hspace{0.55542pt}(u^{t^j})\); compare with (i). Thus \(\widetilde{g_2}^{\, t^{\sigma (k+1)}}\) and \(u^{t^{j}}\), both in the base group, commute with one another. This gives
and we conclude that \(l_S(h) \leqslant l_1 + l_2 + l_3 \leqslant l +D = l_S(g) + D\). \(\square \)
3 Proofs of Theorems A and B
First we explain how Theorem A follows from Theorem B. The first ingredient is the following general lemma.
Lemma 3.1
(Antolín, Martino and Ventura [1, Lemma 3.1]) Let \(G = \langle S \rangle \) be a group, with finite generating set S. Suppose that there exists a subset \(X \subseteq G\) satisfying
-
(a)
\(\delta _S(X) = 0\);
-
(b)
\(\sup \bigl \{ \frac{\vert C_G(g) \cap B_S(n)\vert }{\vert B_S(n)\vert } \,{|}\, g \in G \smallsetminus X \bigr \} \rightarrow 0\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \).
Then G has degree of commutativity \({{\,\textrm{dc}\,}}_S(G)=0\).
The second ingredient comes from [3, Section 2.1], where Cox shows the following. If \(G = H \hspace{1.111pt}{\wr }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) is the wreath product of a finitely generated group \(H \ne 1\) and an infinite cyclic group \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), with base group N, and if S is any finite generating set for G, then
The idea behind Cox’ proof is as follows. For \(g \in G \smallsetminus N\), the centraliser \(C_G(g)\) is cyclic and the ‘translation length’ of g with respect to S is uniformly bounded away from 0. The latter means that there exists \(\tau _S > 0\) such that
Consequently, for \(g \in G \smallsetminus N\) the function \(n \mapsto \vert C_G(g) \,{\cap }\, B_S(n) \vert \) is bounded uniformly by a linear function, while G has exponential word growth.
Thus, Theorem B implies Theorem A, and it remains to establish Theorem B. Throughout the rest of this section, let
be the wreath product of a finitely generated subgroup H and an infinite cyclic subgroup \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), just as in (2.4). The exceptional case \(H = 1\) poses no obstacle, hence we assume \(H \ne 1\). We fix a finite symmetric generating set \(S = \{s_1, \ldots , s_d\}\) for G and employ the notation established around (2.5). Finally, we recall that G has exponential word growth and we write
for the exponential growth rate of G with respect to S; see (2.1).
We start by showing that the subset of N consisting of all elements with suitably bounded support is negligible in the computation of the density of N.
Proposition 3.2
Fix a representative function which yields for each element of G an S-expression of shortest possible length and let \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 1}\) be a non-decreasing unbounded function such that \(q \in o(\log n)\).
Then the sequence of sets
indexed by \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), satisfies
The proof of Proposition 3.2 is preceded by some preparations and two auxiliary lemmata. We keep in place the set-up from Proposition 3.2. For \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\), we write \(H_i = H^{t^i}\). Using the notation established in Sect. 2.2, we accumulate the ‘coordinates’ of elements of S in a set
we set \(S_i = S_0^{\, t^i} \!\subseteq H_i\) for \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\). Then \(S_i\) is a finite symmetric generating set of \(H_i\) for each \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\). Indeed, every element \(h \in H\) satisfies \(h = \widetilde{h} = h_{\vert 0}\) and can thus be written in the form
based upon a suitable itinerary \(I = (\iota ,\sigma )\) of length l. We conclude that \(H = \langle S_0 \rangle \) and consequently \(H_i = \langle S_i \rangle \) for \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\); the generating systems inherit from S the property of being symmetric.
Moreover, we have \(\vert B_{H_i,S_i}(n)\vert = \vert B_{H,S_0}(n)\vert \) for all \(n \in \mathbb {N}\); consequently,
It is convenient to split the analysis of the set \(R_q(n)\) from Proposition 3.2 into two parts. First we take care of elements whose ‘coordinates’ fall within sufficiently small balls around 1 in H, with respect to the generating set \(S_0\).
Lemma 3.3
In addition to the set-up above, let \(f :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{> 0}\) be a non-decreasing unbounded function such that \(f \in o(n/q(n))\).
Then the sequence of subsets
indexed by \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), satisfies
Proof
Let \(C = C(S) \in \mathbb {N}\) be as is in Lemma 2.6 (i) and choose \(C' \!\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(\lambda ^{C'}\! > \lambda _{S_0}(H)\). Then we have, for all sufficiently large \(n \in \mathbb {N}\),
From \(f\in o(n/q(n))\) we obtain
and hence
\(\square \)
Next we consider \(R_q(n) \smallsetminus R_q^f(n)\), for a function f as in Lemma 3.3 and \(n \in \mathbb {N}\). For every \(g \in R_q(n) \smallsetminus R_q^f(n),\) we pick \(i(g) \in \mathbb {Z}\) with
where \(C = C(S) \in \mathbb {N}\) continues to denote the constant from Lemma 2.6 (i). Let \(I = (\iota ,\sigma )\), viz. \(I_g = (\hspace{1.111pt}\iota _g,\sigma _g)\), denote the -itinerary of g. Then
By successively cancelling sub-products of adjacent factors that evaluate to 1 and have maximal length with this property (in an orderly fashion, from left to right, say), we arrive at a ‘reduced’ product expression
for some \(\ell = \ell _g \in [1,l_S(g)]_\mathbb {Z}\) and an increasing function \(\kappa = \kappa _g :[1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z} \rightarrow [1, l_S(g)]_\mathbb {Z}\) that picks out a subsequence of factors. In particular, this means that, for \(j_1, j_2 \in [1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(j_1 < j_2\),
and moreover we have \(l_S(g) \geqslant \ell \geqslant l_{S_0}(g_{\vert \hspace{1.111pt}i(g)}) \geqslant f(n).\)
By means of suitable perturbations, we aim to produce from g a collection of \(\ell \) distinct elements \(\dot{g}(1), \ldots , \dot{g}(\ell )\) which each carry sufficient information to ‘recover’ the initial element g. We proceed as follows. For each choice of \(j \in [1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\) we decompose the itinerary I for g into a product \(I = I_{j,1} \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_{j,2}\) of itineraries of length \(\kappa (j)\) and \(l_S(g) - \kappa (j)\); compare with Lemma 2.5. Then \(g = g_{j,1} g_{j,2}\), where \(g_{j,1}, g_{j,2}\) denote the elements of G corresponding to \(I_{j,1}, I_{j,2}\). From \(g \in R_q(n)\) it follows that \(\textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I_{j,1}) - \textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I_{j,1})\) and \(\textrm{maxi}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I_{j,2}) - \textrm{mini}\hspace{0.55542pt}(I_{j,2})\) are bounded by q(n); in particular, \(\rho (g_{j,1}) \in [-q(n),q(n)]_\mathbb {Z}\).
We define
with \(C=C(S)\) as above; see Fig. 2 for a pictorial illustration, which features an additional parameter \(\tau \) that we introduce in the proof of Lemma 3.4.
Lemma 3.4
In the set-up above, the elements \(\dot{g}(1), \ldots , \dot{g}(\ell )\) defined in (3.3) satisfy the following:
-
(i)
for each \(j \in [1, \ell ]_{\mathbb {Z}}\) the element \(\dot{g}(j)\) lies in \(B_S( n + (3 q(n) + 4C)\hspace{1.111pt}l_S(t))\);
-
(ii)
for each \(j \in [1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\) the original element g can be recovered from \(\dot{g}(j)\);
-
(iii)
the elements \(\dot{g}(1), \ldots , \dot{g}(\ell )\) are pairwise distinct.
Proof
(i) Lemma 2.5 gives \(l_S(g_{j,1}) + l_S(g_{j,2}) = \ell \leqslant l_S(g) \leqslant n\), and it is clear that \(l_S(t^{-3q(n)-4C} ) \leqslant (3q(n) + 4C)\hspace{1.111pt}l_S(t)\).
(ii) Let \(j \in [1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\), and write , . Lemma 2.6 (i) implies that the sets and lie wholly within the interval \([-q(n)-C,q(n)+C]_\mathbb {Z}\), hence
with a gap
subject to the standard conventions \(\min \varnothing = +\infty \) and \(\max \varnothing = -\infty \) in special circumstances; see Fig. 2 for a pictorial illustration.
In contrast, gaps between two elements in or two elements in are strictly less than \(q(n)+2C \leqslant \tau \). Consequently, we can identify the two components in (3.4) and thus and , without any prior knowledge of j or \(g_{j,1}, g_{j,2}\). Therefore, for each \(i \in \mathbb {Z}\) the ith coordinate of g satisfies
and hence g can be recovered from \(\dot{g}(j)\).
(iii) For \(j_1, j_2 \in [1,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(j_1< j_2\) we conclude from our choice of the ‘reduced’ product expression (3.1) and its consequence (3.2) that
and hence \(\dot{g}(j_1) \ne \dot{g}(j_2)\). \(\square \)
For the proof of Proposition 3.2 we now make a more careful choice of the non-decreasing unbounded function \(f :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{>0}\), which entered the stage in Lemma 3.3: we arrange that
with \(C = C(S)\) as in Lemma 2.6 (i). For instance, we can take \(f = f_\alpha \) for any real parameter \(\alpha \) with \(0< \alpha < 1\), where \(f_\alpha (n)=\max \hspace{1.111pt}\{k^{\alpha }/q(k)\,{|}\, k\in [1,n]_{\mathbb {Z}}\}\) for \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). Indeed, since \(q(n) \in o(\log {n})\) and \(q(n) \geqslant 1\) for all \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), each of these functions satisfies
Furthermore, \(q(n) \in o(\log n)\) implies \(q(n)\hspace{1.111pt}a^{q(n)} \!\in o(n^\beta )\) for all \(a \in \mathbb {R}_{> 1}\) and \(\beta \in \mathbb {R}_{> 0}\) so that
Proof of Proposition 3.2
We continue with the set-up established above; in particular, we make use of the refined choice of f. In view of Lemma 3.3 it remains to show that
We define a map
see (3.3) and Lemma 3.4 (i). From Lemma 3.4 (ii) we deduce that \(F_{n}(g_1) \cap F_{n}(g_2) = \varnothing \) for all \(g_1, g_2 \in R_q(n) \smallsetminus R_q^f(n)\) with \(g_1 \ne g_2\). In addition, from \(\ell _g \geqslant f(n)\) and Lemma 3.4 (iii) we deduce that \(\vert F_{n}(g)\vert \geqslant f(n)\) for all \(g \in R_q(n) \smallsetminus R_q^f(n)\). This yields
and hence, by submultiplicativity,
\(\square \)
Remark 3.5
Proposition 3.2 can be established much more easily under the extra assumption that H has sub-exponential word growth. Indeed, in this case, one can prove that
for any non-decreasing unbounded function \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{>1}\) such that \(q \in o(n)\); the proof is similar to the one of Lemma 4.1 below.
If we assume that H is finite, it is easy to see that there exists \(\alpha \in \mathbb {R}_{>0}\) such that
Next we establish Theorem B, using ideas that are similar to those in the proof of Proposition 3.2: again we work with perturbations of a given element g in such a manner that the original element can be retrieved easily. We begin with some preparations to establish an auxiliary lemma.
Fix a representative function which yields for each element of G an S-expression of shortest possible length, and fix an element \(u \in H \smallsetminus \{1\}\). Consider \(g \in N\) with -itinerary \(I = (\iota ,\sigma )\), viz. \(I_g = (\iota _g,\sigma _g)\). We put
For the time being, we suppose that
satisfy \(k^+\!\leqslant k^-\). We decompose the itinerary for g as \(I = I_1 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_2 \hspace{1.111pt}{*}\hspace{1.111pt}I_3\), where \(I_1,I_2,I_3\) have lengths \(k^+\), \(k^- - k^+\), \(l_S(g)-k^-\); compare with Lemma 2.5.
If , , denote the elements corresponding to \(I_1\), \(I_2\), \(I_3\) then \(g = xyz\); observe that the lengths of \(I_1, I_2, I_3\) are automatically minimal, i.e, equal to \(l_S(x), l_S(y), l_S(z)\). All this is illustrated schematically in Fig. 3. Observe that \(I_1\), associated to x, ‘starts’ at 0 and ‘ends’ at \(\sigma ^+\), the shifted \(I_2\), associated to y, ‘starts’ at \(\sigma ^+\) and ‘ends’ at \(\sigma ^-\), and the shifted \(I_3\), associated to z, ‘starts’ at \(\sigma ^-\) and ‘ends’ at 0.
Next, we put to use the element \(u \in H \smallsetminus \{1\}\) that was fixed and define, for any given \(J \subseteq [\sigma ^-\!,\sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\), perturbations
of the elements x, y, z that are specified by
and
where we suggestively write \(J_{\geqslant 0} = \{ j \in J \,{|}\, j \geqslant 0 \}\) and \(J_{<0} = \{ j \in J \,{|}\, j < 0 \}\). We observe that
Let \(C = C(S) \in \mathbb {N}\) be as in Lemma 2.6 (i). We call
the J-variant of g; see Fig. 4 for a schematic illustration.
Observe that
Up to now we assumed that \(k^+ \!\leqslant k^-\). If instead \(k^-\! < k^+\), a similar construction at this stage yields elements
in particular, there is no overlap between elements \(\ddot{g}(J)\) arising from these two different cases.
For our purposes, it suffices to work with subsets \(J \subseteq [\sigma ^-\!,\sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\) of size \(\vert J \vert = 2\) and we streamline the discussion to this situation.
Lemma 3.6
In the set-up described above, suppose that \(J \subseteq [ \sigma ^-\!, \sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(\vert J \vert = 2\). Let \(D = D(S,u) \in \mathbb {N}\) be as in Lemma 2.6 (ii). Then
-
(i)
\( l_S(\ddot{g}(J)) \leqslant l_S(g) + D' \) for \(D' = 6D + 2\, l_S (\hspace{1.111pt}t^{2C} )\);
-
(ii)
the element g can be recovered from \(\ddot{g}(J)\) and any one of \(\sigma ^+\!, \sigma ^-\);
-
(iii)
the resulting variants of g are pairwise distinct, i.e., \(\ddot{g}(J) \ne \ddot{g}(J')\) for all \( J' \!\subseteq [ \sigma ^-, \sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(\vert J' \vert =2\) and \(J \ne J'\).
Proof
(i) Since
we can apply Lemma 2.6 (ii), if necessary twice, to deduce that
Since \(l_S(x) + l_S(y) + l_S(z) = l_S(g)\), this gives
(ii) As in the discussion above suppose that and satisfy \(k^+ \!\leqslant k^-\); the other case \(k^-\! < k^+\) can be dealt with similarly. We have to check that g can be recovered from \(\ddot{g}(J)\), if we are allowed to use one of the parameters \(\sigma ^+, \sigma ^-\). Indeed, from \(-\rho (\ddot{g}(J)) = 2 ( \sigma ^+ - \sigma ^- ) +4C\) we deduce that in such a case both, \(\sigma ^+\) and \(\sigma ^-\) are available to us. Furthermore, Lemma 2.6 (i) gives
and thus
allows us to recover \(\dot{x}(J)\), \(\dot{y}(J)\) and \(\dot{z}(J)\) via (3.5) and
Using (3.7), we recover \(g = \dot{x}(J) \hspace{1.111pt}\dot{y}(J) \, \dot{z}(J)\).
(iii) Again we suppose that and satisfy \(k^+\! \leqslant k^-\); the other case \(k^-\! < k^+\) can be dealt with similarly. Let \(J' \!\subseteq [\sigma ^-\!, \sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(\vert J' \vert = 2\) such that \(\ddot{g}(J) = \ddot{g}(J')\). As explained above, we can not only recover g but even \(\dot{x}(J) = \dot{x}(J')\), \(\dot{y}(J) = \dot{y}(J')\) and \(\dot{z}(J) = \dot{z}(J')\) from \(\ddot{g}(J) = \ddot{g}(J')\) and \(\sigma ^+\), say. Since \(u \ne 1\) we deduce from (3.6) that \(J = J'\). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem B
We continue within the set-up established above; in particular, we employ the J-variants \(\ddot{g}(J)\) of elements \(g \in N\) for two-element subsets \(J \subseteq [\sigma ^-_g,\sigma ^+_g]_\mathbb {Z}\), with respect to a fixed representative function and a chosen element \(u \in H \smallsetminus \{1\}\).
Let \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 1}\) be a non-decreasing unbounded function such that \(q \in o(\log n)\). We make use of the decomposition
where is defined as in Proposition 3.2 and denotes the corresponding complement in \(N \cap B_S(n)\). Let \(D' \!\in \mathbb {N}\) be as in Lemma 3.6 (i). Below we show that
This bound and submultiplicativity yield
Together with Proposition 3.2 we deduce from (3.10) that N has density zero:
properly as a limit.
It remains to establish (3.11). The set \(R_{q}^\flat (n)\) decomposes into a disjoint union of subsets
and the map
restricts for each \(\ell \in \mathbb {N}\) with \(\ell > q(n)\), to a mapping
see Lemma 3.6 (i), (3.8) and (3.9).
We contend that for every \(h \in ( N t^{-2\ell -4C}\! \cup N t^{2\ell +4C} ) \cap B_S(n + D'),\) where \(\ell > q(n)\), there are at most \(\ell +1\) elements \(g \in R_{q,\ell }^\flat (n)\) such that \(h \in F_n(g)\). Indeed, suppose that \(h \in N t^{2\ell +4C} \!\cap B_S(n + D')\), with \(\ell > q(n)\), and suppose that \(g \in R_{q,\ell }^\flat (n)\) such that \(h = \ddot{g}(J)\) for some \(J \subseteq [\sigma _g^-, \sigma _g^+]_\mathbb {Z}\) with \(\vert J\vert =2\). Then \(\sigma _g^+ \in [0,\ell ]_\mathbb {Z}\) takes one of \(\ell +1\) values, and once \(\sigma ^+\) is fixed, there is a way of recovering g, by Lemma 3.6 (ii). For \(h \in Nt^{-2\ell -4C} \cap B_S(n + D')\) the argument is similar.
From this observation and Lemma 3.6 (ii) we conclude that
Hence
which is the bound (3.11) we aimed for. \(\square \)
4 Proof of Theorem C
Throughout this section let G denote a finitely generated group of exponential word growth of the form \(G= N \hspace{1.111pt}{\rtimes }\hspace{1.111pt}\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \), where
-
(a)
the subgroup \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \) is infinite cyclic;
-
(b)
the normal subgroup \(N = \bigl \langle \hspace{1.111pt}\bigcup \{ H^{t^i} {|}\, i \in \mathbb {Z} \}\bigr \rangle \) is generated by the \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \)-conjugates of a finitely generated subgroup H N;
-
(c)
the \(\langle \hspace{1.111pt}t \rangle \)-conjugates of this group H commute elementwise: \( [H^{t^i}\!, H^{t^j} ] = 1\) for all \(i, j \in \mathbb {Z}\) with \(H^{t^i} \!\!\ne H^{t^j}\).
Suppose further that \(S_0 = \{a_1, \dots , a_d\} \subseteq H\) is a finite symmetric generating set for H and that the exponential growth rates of H with respect to \(S_0\) and of G with respect to \(S = S_0 \cup \{\hspace{1.111pt}t, t^{-1} \}\) satisfy
This is essentially the setting of Theorem C; for technical reasons we prefer to work with symmetric generating sets. Our ultimate aim is to show that \(\delta _S(N)=0\).
Using the commutation rules recorded in (c), it is not difficult to see that every \(g \in N\) admits S-expressions of minimal length that take the special form
where the parameters \(\sigma ^-, \sigma ^+ \in \mathbb {Z}\) satisfy \(\sigma ^- \leqslant \sigma ^+\) and, for every \(i \in [\sigma ^-\!,\sigma ^+]_\mathbb {Z}\), we have picked a suitable semigroup word \(w_i = w_i(Y_1,\ldots ,Y_d)\) in d variables of length \(l_{S_0}(w_i(a_1,\ldots ,a_d))\). The lengths of the expressions (4.2) and (4.3) are equal to
For the following we fix, for each \(g \in N\), expressions as described and we use subscripts to stress the dependency on g: we write \(\sigma _g^-\), \(\sigma _g^+\) and \(w_{g,i}\) for \(i \in [\sigma _g^-,\sigma _g^+]_\mathbb {Z}\), where necessary. The notation is meant to be reminiscent of the one introduced in Definition 2.3, but one needs to keep in mind that we are dealing with a larger class of groups now.
Lemma 4.1
In addition to the general set-up described above, let \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{>0}\) be a non-decreasing unbounded function such that \(q \in o(n)\). Then the sequence of sets
indexed by \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), satisfies
Proof
For short we set \(\mu = \lim _{n \rightarrow \infty }\root n \of {\vert B_{H,S_0}(n)\vert }\) and \(\lambda = \lim _{n \rightarrow \infty } \root n \of {\vert B_{G,S}(n)\vert }\). According to (4.1) we find \(\varepsilon \in \mathbb {R}_{> 0}\) such that \((\mu + \varepsilon )/\lambda \leqslant 1 - \varepsilon \) and \(M = M_\varepsilon \in \mathbb {N}\) such that
This allows us to bound the number of possibilities for the elements \(w_{g,i}(a_1,\ldots ,a_d)\) in an S-expression of the form (4.2) for \(g \in R_q(n)\) and, writing \({\tilde{q}}(n) = 2 \lfloor q(n) \rfloor +1\), we obtain
and hence
We notice that \(q \in o(n)\) implies \({\tilde{q}} \in o(n)\). Thus Lemma 2.1 implies that \(\left( {\begin{array}{c}n + {\tilde{q}}(n)\\ {\tilde{q}}(n)\end{array}}\right) M^{{\tilde{q}}(n)}\) grows sub-exponentially, and the term on the right-hand side of (4.4) tends to 0 as n tends to infinity. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem C
We continue to work in the notational set-up introduced above. In addition we fix a non-decreasing unbounded function \(q :\mathbb {N} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}\) such that \(q \in o(n)\) and
see Proposition 2.2. As in the proof of Theorem B, we make use of a decomposition
where \(R_{q}(n)\) is defined as in Lemma 4.1 and \(R_{q}^\flat (n)\) denotes the corresponding complement in \(N \cap B_S(n)\).
In view of Lemma 4.1 it suffices to show that
It is enough to consider sufficiently large n so that \(n>q(n)\) holds. For every such n and \(g \in R_{q}^\flat (n)\), with chosen minimal S-expressions (4.2) and (4.3), we have \(\sigma ^- = \sigma _g^- < - q(n)\) or \(\sigma ^+ = \sigma _g^+ > q(n)\), hence
As each of the right translation maps \(g \mapsto g t^{-q(n)}\) and \(g \mapsto g t^{q(n)}\) is injective, we conclude that
Data availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Notes
At this stage the sign change is a price we pay for not introducing notation for left-conjugation; Example 2.4 illustrates that \(\sigma \) plays a convenient role in the concept of itinerary.
References
Antolín, Y., Martino, A., Ventura, E.: Degree of commutativity of infinite groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145(2), 479–485 (2017)
Burillo, J., Ventura, E.: Counting primitive elements in free groups. Geom. Dedicata. 93, 143–162 (2002)
Cox, C.G.: The degree of commutativity and lamplighter groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 28(7), 1163–1173 (2018)
Erdős, P., Turán, P.: On some problems of a statistical group-theory. IV. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 19, 413–435 (1968)
Guralnick, R.M., Robinson, G.R.: On the commuting probability in finite groups. J. Algebra 300(2), 509–528 (2006)
Gustafson, W.H.: What is the probability that two group elements commute? Amer. Math. Monthly 80(9), 1031–1034 (1973)
De la Harpe, P.: Topics in Geometric Group Theory. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)
Martino, A., Tointon, M.C., Valiunas, M., Ventura, E.: Probabilistic nilpotence in infinite groups. Israel J. Math. 244(2), 539–588 (2021)
Neumann, P.M.: Two combinatorial problems in group theory. Bull. London Math. Soc. 21(5), 456–458 (1989)
Pittet, Ch.: The isoperimetric profile of homogeneous Riemannian manifolds. J. Differential Geom. 54(2), 255–302 (2000)
Rusin, D.J.: What is the probability that two elements of a finite group commute? Pacific J. Math. 82(1), 237–247 (1979)
Shalev, A.: Probabilistically nilpotent groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 146(4), 1529–1536 (2018)
Tointon, M.C.H.: Commuting probabilities of infinite groups. J. London Math. Soc. 101(3), 1280–1297 (2020)
Valiunas, M.: Rational growth and degree of commutativity of graph products. J. Algebra 522, 309–331 (2019)
Acknowledgements
We thank two independent referees for detailed and valuable feedback. Their comments triggered us to improve the exposition and to sort out a number of minor shortcomings. In particular, this gave rise to Proposition 2.2.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All the authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The first author acknowledges support by the Basque Government, grant POS_2021_2_0040. The third author is supported by Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities’ grant FPU17/04822. The first and third author acknowledge as well support by the Basque Government, project IT483-22, and the Spanish Government, project PID2020-117281GB-I00, partly funded by ERDF. The authors thank Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, where a large part of this research was carried out.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
de las Heras, I., Klopsch, B. & Zozaya, A. The degree of commutativity of wreath products with infinite cyclic top group. European Journal of Mathematics 10, 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40879-024-00734-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40879-024-00734-4