2002
DOI: 10.1112/s0024611502013473
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Nielsen Method for Groups Acting on Trees

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, Grushko's theorem (see the proofs, for example, in [19,33]) ensures that every tuple generating a group G 1 * G 2 is Nielsen equivalent to a tuple (T 1 , T 2 ) where T 1 generates G 1 and T 2 generates G 2 . Note also that the statement of Theorem 9.1 holds for infinite cyclic groups (and, moreover, for finitely generated free groups).…”
Section: Nielsen Equivalence Classes Of Generating Tuplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, Grushko's theorem (see the proofs, for example, in [19,33]) ensures that every tuple generating a group G 1 * G 2 is Nielsen equivalent to a tuple (T 1 , T 2 ) where T 1 generates G 1 and T 2 generates G 2 . Note also that the statement of Theorem 9.1 holds for infinite cyclic groups (and, moreover, for finitely generated free groups).…”
Section: Nielsen Equivalence Classes Of Generating Tuplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not surprisingly our methods let us recover the same bound c(G, D) = 2D(k − 1) on the complexity of acylindrical accessibility splittings as the one given in [40]. The main ingredient is a theory of Nielsen methods for groups acting on hyperbolic spaces that we systematically developed in [29,30].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The main ingredient is a theory of Nielsen methods for groups acting on hyperbolic spaces that we systematically developed in [29,30]. This theory is analogous to Weidmann's treatment of actions on simplicial trees [40], but the case of arbitrary hyperbolic spaces is technically much more complicated. Note that the proof of Theorem 1.2 completely avoids the Rips machinery for groups acting on R-trees [8,27] and Theorem 1.2 makes no traditional stability assumptions about the action.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then, the method has been further developed by Zieschang, Weidmann, Kapovich and others. We will need the following theorem that can be found in Weidmann's paper [Wei02,Theorem 7], setting S i = ∅.…”
Section: Tree Automorphismsmentioning
confidence: 99%