Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

2-dimensional Shephard groups

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 2-dimensional Shephard group can fail to be CAT(0) while still acting cocompactly on a CAT(0) complex built from its spherical-type subgroups.

desk verdict A substantial, mostly careful paper whose main CAT(0) theorem rests on one currently unproved geometric claim in Prop 4.3; worth serious refereeing, but not ready as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15434 v1 pith:ZUF74BE4 submitted 2024-11-23 math.GR math.ATmath.MG

Katherine Goldman This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GRmath.ATmath.MG MSC 20F6520F6720F3620F5520E26
keywords ShephardgroupsArtinCAT(0)complexesDelignecomplexrelativehyperbolicityacylindricalresidualfinitenesscentralextensions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper investigates Shephard groups — quotients of 2-dimensional Artin groups obtained by forcing the standard generators to have finite order — and shows that the CAT(0) geometry of the Artin world survives only in a qualified form. A dihedral Shephard group $Sh(p,q,r)$ with $1/p+2/q+1/r\le 1$ is never CAT(0), and any 2-dimensional Shephard group containing such an edge subgroup inherits that obstruction. Yet Theorem B gives every 2-dimensional Shephard group a cocompact action on a piecewise Euclidean CAT(0) complex $\Theta_\Gamma$ built from its spherical-type subgroups, namely the subgraphs whose associated Coxeter group is finite. This complex supports acylindrical hyperbolicity, relative hyperbolicity for hyperbolic-type graphs, and — as an application back to Artin groups — residual finiteness for a broad class of 2-dimensional Artin groups.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dihedral Shephard group $Sh(p,q,r)$ together with its coset geometry $\widehat{\Theta}(p,q,r)$. Each infinite such group is realized as a $\mathbb{Z}$-central extension of a triangle group, or of a finite-index subgroup of one, whose Euler class has infinite order; this realizes the group as a uniform lattice in $\mathrm{Isom}(\widetilde{SL_2\mathbb{R}})$ when $1/p+2/q+1/r<1$. The proof of Theorem B then rests on Proposition 4.3: a cyclically reduced word equal to the identity, with no exponent a multiple of the corresponding generator order, must have syllable length at least $2q$. That bound makes every local development of the complex of groups CAT(1), hence the global development $\Theta_\Gamma$ is CAT(0) by the standard complex-of-groups criterion.

What would settle it

A direct computer search for a cyclically reduced word of syllable length $< 2q$ in $Sh(3,6,4)$ that equals the identity, with exponents not multiples of the generator orders, would refute Proposition 4.3 and with it the CAT(0) construction; no such word should exist if the paper is right.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem B: for every 2-dimensional extended presentation graph $\Gamma$, each edge subgroup embeds in $Sh_\Gamma$, and $Sh_\Gamma$ acts cocompactly on a CAT(0) piecewise Euclidean cell complex $\Theta_\Gamma$ whose cell stabilizers are the conjugates of $Sh_\Lambda$ for spherical-type subgraphs $\Lambda$. The construction mirrors the Deligne complex for Artin groups, using cosets of spherical-type subgroups as vertices. The negative counterpart, Theorem A, says a dihedral Shephard group $Sh(p,q,r)$ with $1/p+2/q+1/r\le 1$ cannot act properly by semi-simple isometries on any CAT(0) space: at equality it is commensurable to the 3-dimensional integer Heisenberg group, and in the hyperbolic case to a universal central extension of a hyperbolic surface group, realized as a uniform lattice in $\mathrm{Isom}(\widetilde{SL_2\mathbb{R}})$. The paper's interpretation is that infinite dihedral edge subgroups act as 'poison subgroups' for CAT(0) geometry, yet they are exactly the stabilizers appearing in the new complex, so the construction locates the obstruction rather than removing it.

Load-bearing premise

The geometric step in Proposition 4.3 — that a simple loop in the coset geometry must enclose a cell projecting to the relator $e_{ac}$ and traverse it with consistent orientation, forcing a nonzero coefficient — is asserted without a full proof; the entire CAT(0) complex construction and every downstream theorem depend on that claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every edge subgroup of a 2-dimensional Shephard group embeds, so infinite dihedral edge subgroups are provably poison subgroups and the CAT(0) obstruction of Theorem A applies to any 2-dimensional Shephard group containing one.
  • For irreducible 2-dimensional Shephard groups with at least three generators and an infinite edge subgroup in every connected component, the cocompact CAT(0) action yields acylindrical hyperbolicity (Theorem C).
  • For hyperbolic-type 2-dimensional graphs, the action on $\Theta_\Gamma$ gives relative hyperbolicity with the infinite spherical-type edge groups as peripheral subgroups; if all edge groups are finite, $Sh_\Gamma$ is hyperbolic (Theorem D).
  • Relative hyperbolicity transfers solvable word problem, the Tits alternative, finite asymptotic dimension, and the rapid decay property to these Shephard groups, with biautomaticity unless some edge satisfies $1/p_i+2/m_{ij}+1/p_j=1$ (Corollary E).
  • For triangle-free graphs with no 4-cycle all of whose edges are labeled 2, both the Shephard group and the corresponding Artin group are residually finite (Corollary F and Theorem G).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, Lemma 8.7's persistence of geodesics under the quotient $\Phi_\Gamma\to\Theta_{\Gamma(k)}$ suggests a wider route to residual finiteness: any family of geodesics that survives such quotients transfers residual finiteness from Shephard groups back to Artin groups, so the class in Theorem G is probably not maximal.
  • The paper proves only that word-hyperbolicity of $W_\Gamma$ forces $\Theta_\Gamma$ to be hyperbolic; if an isometric embedding of the Davis complex into $\Theta_\Gamma$ exists, the converse would follow and the relative-hyperbolicity theorem would become a sharp analogue of the corresponding Artin-group result rather than one direction.
  • The 'poison subgroup' reading suggests a recognition principle the paper does not state: a 2-dimensional Shephard group is CAT(0) only if every embedded infinite dihedral edge subgroup has at least one generator of infinite order, since the finite-label examples show the obstruction is local and hereditary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies 2-dimensional Shephard groups, quotients of 2-dimensional Artin groups in which each standard generator is killed by a finite power. The author first analyses dihedral Shephard groups: Theorem A exhibits each infinite Sh(p,q,r) as a Z-central extension of an infinite triangle group (or a finite-index subgroup thereof) with infinite Euler class, yielding non-CAT(0), virtual nilpotency in the Euclidean case, and commensurability to a uniform lattice in the universal cover of PSL2(R) in the hyperbolic case. The central construction is Theorem B: for every 2-dimensional extended presentation graph Γ, the edge parabolics embed and ShΓ acts cocompactly on a piecewise Euclidean CAT(0) complex ΘΓ whose cell stabilizers are conjugates of spherical-type Shephard subgroups. The remaining results derive global consequences: acylindrical hyperbolicity (Theorem C), relative hyperbolicity (Theorem D), and residual finiteness of a broad class of 2-dimensional Artin groups (Theorem G), the latter via a geodesic-preserving quotient argument from the Deligne complex to ΘΓ.

Significance. If correct, Theorem B is a substantial structural result: it gives a Deligne-complex analogue for 2-dimensional Shephard groups and transfers the machinery of CAT(0) geometry to groups with torsion in the generating set. The consequences (relative hyperbolicity of Shephard groups where the associated Artin groups are typically not relatively hyperbolic, and residual finiteness for many 2-dimensional Artin groups) are novel and interesting. The paper is largely self-contained: Sections 2 and 3 give a coherent cohomological and geometric description of dihedral Shephard groups, and the arguments are modular. The main risk is concentrated in a small number of geometric lemmas: the syllable-length bound (Prop. 4.3), the convexity and fine-graph estimate (Lemma 7.5), and the hyperbolicity criterion (Lemma 7.3). These lemmas are load-bearing for Theorem B and for the later theorems, so they must be fully repaired before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Proposition 4.3 (proof)] In the proof of Proposition 4.3, after reducing to a simple loop γ0, the paper asserts that the lifted simple loop must enclose at least one cell of the Cayley 2-complex projecting to e_ac and that every such cell is traversed with a consistent positive orientation, so n_ac ≠ 0. This is the only step that rules out w0 = e, and it is not justified: the 2-chain R with d2(R) = ρ is not canonical, since Lemma 3.1 supplies a nonzero 2-cycle that can be added to R and changes n_ac. The argument therefore must use the specific planar disk enclosed by the simple loop and compare the planar tiling T(p,2q,r) with the Cayley 2-complex obtained by attaching extra cells. The manuscript does not provide that comparison. Since Proposition 4.3 is exactly the input used in Theorem 5.8 to bound the girth of bΘΛ by 2m_ij, this gap is load-bearing for Theorem B and hence for Theorems C, D, F, and G.
  2. [§7, Lemma 7.5 (proof)] The proof of Lemma 7.5 asserts without proof that the closed star St(x) is convex because it is built from Euclidean right triangles with an acute angle at x. A union of triangles around a vertex is not convex in general, even if the local angle at x is acute; convexity requires control of the total angle around x and of the way the triangles are glued. The subsequent construction of the closest-point projection ρ onto St(x) and the inequality ℓ_x(y,z) ≤ C d_x(y,z) + D depend on this convexity. If St(x) is not convex, the comparison between the induced metric on ∂St(x) and the graph distance fails, and with it the proof that Y is fine in Theorem D.
  3. [§7, Lemma 7.3 (proof)] Lemma 7.3 applies the Flat Plane Theorem to the CAT(0) complex ΘΓ to conclude hyperbolicity from the absence of an isometrically embedded plane. The standard formulations of that theorem require additional hypotheses, typically geodesic completeness or properness of the space and/or properness of the action, and none of these is verified for ΘΓ. In fact, when an edge group She is infinite, the stabilizer of the corresponding vertex is infinite, so the action is not proper. The subsequent assertion that a flat plane "must be a subcomplex" is also not automatic for an isometric copy of E^2 in a CAT(0) cell complex. Since Lemma 7.3 is the only bridge from non-positive curvature to hyperbolicity of ΘΓ used in Theorem D, this needs a complete justification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5, Theorem 5.8 proof] The sentence "the syllable length of this word is n = ℓ(γ" is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read "n = ℓ(γ)".
  2. [§8, Lemma 8.6 proof] The sentence "This implies in particular that α ∉ C; otherwise..." is logically garbled. What is needed is that the image of α remains outside the image of C in the quotient, i.e. ρ(α) ∉ ρ(C), which follows from φ(α) ∉ φ(C) because φ factors through the quotient map. The argument should be rewritten accordingly.
  3. [§7, Corollary E proof] In the proof of Corollary E, the phrase "the peripheral subgroups of ShΛ" is undefined; it should refer either to the peripheral subgroups of ShΓ or to the edge groups She corresponding to edges e of Γ.
  4. [§7, Theorem D proof] In the proof of Theorem D, the symbol VK(x) should be V_x(Y), and earlier in the same proof "VK(x) is locally finite" repeats the same typo.
  5. [§3.2, after Proposition 3.7] The notation "When h = 1, M ∼= Z2" is ambiguous: the torsion-free finite-index subgroup M is isomorphic to Z^2, not to the cyclic group Z/2Z. This should be clarified for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained, with routine citations to prior work as independent support.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. Theorem A is obtained from explicit central-extension presentations (Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3), an explicit second-cohomology class of infinite order (Lemma 3.1), and standard CAT(0) obstructions (Proposition 2.6); no parameter is fitted and no conclusion is assumed. Theorem B rests on Proposition 4.3, the syllable-length bound, and the CAT(1) reduction in Theorem 5.8. The only delicate point is the geometric assertion inside the proof of Proposition 4.3: 'Since γ0 is simple and we have assumed 0 < ij < psj, we know that ρ~ is a simple loop, it must enclose at least one cell of eK^(2) which maps to eac, and it must traverse the boundaries of each such cell with a consistent (positive) orientation. This means that nac ≠ 0.' This statement is load-bearing and is only sketched, so it is a legitimate correctness risk; but it is not circular, because it is a claim about the planar tiling and simple loops, not an assumption equivalent to the conclusion being proved. The citation to the author's earlier paper [Gol23] for finite Shephard groups and finite edge complexes—e.g., 'if ShΛ is finite ... this complex was shown to be CAT(1) in [Gol23, Lemma 6.1]'—is a self-citation, but it is independent prior work whose assumptions do not include the present theorem, and the present results do not reduce to it except for this separately established finite case. Similarly, Theorem C adapts [Vas22] with explicitly modified lemmas, and Theorem D uses the Bowditch criterion with the CAT(0) complex from Theorem B. The paper also honestly flags its own open points—'It is a conjecture that given any extended presentation graph, its edge parabolics embed' and 'The existence or non-existence of such an embedding is outside our current scope of consideration'—which are limitations, not hidden circularities. Overall, no prediction or theorem is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses standard background from CAT(0) geometry and group theory. No free parameters are fitted. Two geometric properties of the constructed complex are asserted without full proof: convexity of closed stars and geodesic completeness.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard results from Bridson-Haefliger CAT(0) geometry, including Thm II.6.12 on central Z^d factors and Prop II.2.4 on closest point projection.
    Used in Proposition 2.6 and Lemma 7.5.
  • standard math The Flat Plane Theorem for CAT(0) spaces.
    Used in Lemma 7.3 to link hyperbolicity of WΓ to absence of flat planes in ΘΓ.
  • ad hoc to paper The closed star of a vertex in ΘΓ is convex.
    Assumed in Lemma 7.5; not generally true for all piecewise Euclidean CAT(0) complexes without further hypotheses.
  • domain assumption The complex ΘΓ is geodesically complete, or otherwise satisfies the hypotheses of the Flat Plane Theorem.
    Needed for the Flat Plane Theorem in Lemma 7.3; not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2-dimensional Shephard groups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUF74BE4

@misc{pith2026241115434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2-dimensional Shephard groups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUF74BE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15434}
}
abstract

The 2-dimensional Shephard groups are quotients of 2-dimensional Artin groups by powers of standard generators. We show that such a quotient is not $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ if the powers taken are sufficiently large. However, for a given 2-dimensional Shephard group, we construct a $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ piecewise Euclidean cell complex with a cocompact action (analogous to the Deligne complex for an Artin group) that allows us to determine other non-positive curvature properties. Namely, we show the 2-dimensional Shephard groups are acylindrically hyperbolic (which was known for 2-dimensional Artin groups), and relatively hyperbolic (which most Artin groups are known not to be). As an application, we show that a broad class of 2-dimensional Artin groups are residually finite.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The tiling T (3, 6, 4) whose 1-skeleton is the Cayley graph of ∆(3, 3, 4) [Kal] action is still free and properly discontinuous, so we may define the quotient space K = K/ e ∆ such that Ke is the universal cover of K. Note that K(2) (as defined before) is the 2-skeleton of K. Since Ke is the universal cover of K, we know π2(K) ∼= π2(Ke) = 0. This means that H2(∆) ∼= H2(K) and H2 (∆; Z) ∼= H2 (K; Z), where ∆ = ∆(p, q… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Cayley graph (a) and coset geometry (b) for ∆(3, 3, 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Cayley graph (dashed) and coset geometry (solid) of ∆(3, 3, 3) overlaid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hexagons in D(3, 3, 3) and a path enclosing them (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lifts to Θ for Sh(3 b , 6, 3) endpoints of this path are “distance 2” along the fiber of the base vertex. This corresponds to the fact that the path encloses exactly two hexagons. One may compare this to the usual description of the Cayley graph of the 3-dimensional in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artin groups and infinite C oxeter groups

    Kenneth I Appel and Paul E Schupp. Artin groups and infinite C oxeter groups. Inventiones mathematicae , 72(2):201--220, 1983

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    Asymptotic dimension

    Greg Bell and Alexander Dranishnikov. Asymptotic dimension. Topology and its Applications , 155(12):1265--1296, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319

    Martin R Bridson and Andr \'e Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Braids, posets and orthoschemes

    Tom Brady and Jon McCammond. Braids, posets and orthoschemes. Algebraic & Geometric Topology , 10(4):2277--2314, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Relatively hyperbolic groups

    Brian H Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. International Journal of Algebra and Computation , 22(03):1250016, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    Cohomology of Groups

    Kenneth S Brown. Cohomology of Groups . Springer Science & Business Media, 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Relative hyperbolicity and A rtin groups

    Ruth Charney and John Crisp. Relative hyperbolicity and A rtin groups. Geometriae Dedicata , 129:1--13, 2007

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    The K( , 1) -problem for hyperplane complements associated to infinite reflection groups

    Ruth Charney and Michael W Davis. The K( , 1) -problem for hyperplane complements associated to infinite reflection groups. Journal of the American Mathematical Society , 8(3):597--627, 1995

    work page 1995

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    H.S.M. Coxeter. Regular Complex Polytopes . Cambridge University Press, 1975

    1975

  2. [10]

    Automorphisms and abstract commensurators of 2--dimensional A rtin groups

    John Crisp. Automorphisms and abstract commensurators of 2--dimensional A rtin groups. Geometry & Topology , 9(3):1381--1441, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Geometric group theory , volume 63

    Cornelia Dru t u and Michael Kapovich. Geometric group theory , volume 63. American Mathematical Soc., 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Topics in geometric group theory

    Pierre de La Harpe. Topics in geometric group theory . University of Chicago Press, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Relatively hyperbolic groups with rapid decay property

    Cornelia Dru t u and Mark Sapir. Relatively hyperbolic groups with rapid decay property. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2005(19):1181--1194, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Relatively geometric actions on CAT (0) cube complexes

    Eduard Einstein and Daniel Groves. Relatively geometric actions on CAT (0) cube complexes. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 105(1):691--708, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Relatively hyperbolic groups

    Benson Farb. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Geometric and functional analysis , 8(5):810--840, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    CAT (0) and cubulated S hephard groups

    Katherine Goldman. CAT (0) and cubulated S hephard groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10883 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    XXL type A rtin groups are CAT(0) and acylindrically hyperbolic

    Thomas Haettel. XXL type A rtin groups are CAT(0) and acylindrically hyperbolic. In Annales de l'Institut Fourier , volume 72, pages 2541--2555, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Algebraic T opology

    Allen Hatcher. Algebraic T opology . Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Cocompactly cubulated 2-dimensional A rtin groups

    Jingyin Huang, Kasia Jankiewicz, and Piotr Przytycki. Cocompactly cubulated 2-dimensional A rtin groups. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici , 91(3):519--542, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Residual finiteness of certain 2-dimensional A rtin groups

    Kasia Jankiewicz. Residual finiteness of certain 2-dimensional A rtin groups. Advances in Mathematics , 405:108487, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Rapidly decreasing functions in reduced C ^* -algebras of groups

    Paul Jolissaint. Rapidly decreasing functions in reduced C ^* -algebras of groups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 317(1):167--196, 1990

    1990

  14. [22]

    Generated with K aleido T ile by J eff W eeks: \\ https://www.geometrygames.org/KaleidoTile/index.html.en

  15. [23]

    Relative hyperbolicity and A rtin groups

    Ilya Kapovich and Paul Schupp. Relative hyperbolicity and A rtin groups. Geometriae Dedicata , 107:153--167, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    On the 3-dimensional B rieskorn manifolds M (p, q, r)

    John Milnor. On the 3-dimensional B rieskorn manifolds M (p, q, r) . Knots, groups and 3-Manifolds , 3:175--225, 1975

    1975

  17. [25]

    Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees

    Ashot Minasyan and Denis Osin. Acylindrical hyperbolicity of groups acting on trees. Mathematische Annalen , 362(3):1055--1105, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Hyperbolic C oxeter groups

    Gabor Moussong. Hyperbolic C oxeter groups . PhD thesis, The Ohio State University, 1988

    1988

  19. [27]

    On the vertex-to-edge duality between the C ayley graph and the coset geometry of von D yck groups

    Giovanni Moreno and Monika Ewa Stypa. On the vertex-to-edge duality between the C ayley graph and the coset geometry of von D yck groups. Mathematica Slovaca , 66(3):527--538, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Algebras of rapidly decreasing functions on groups and cocycles of polynomial growth

    Gennady Andreevich Noskov. Algebras of rapidly decreasing functions on groups and cocycles of polynomial growth. Sibirskii Matematicheskii Zhurnal , 33(4):97--103, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Central extensions of word hyperbolic groups

    Walter D Neumann and Lawrence Reeves. Central extensions of word hyperbolic groups. Annals of mathematics , 145(1):183--192, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    Asymptotic dimension of relatively hyperbolic groups

    Denis Osin. Asymptotic dimension of relatively hyperbolic groups. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2005(35):2143--2161, 2005

    2005

  23. [31]

    Relatively Hyperbolic Groups: Intrinsic Geometry, Algebraic Properties, and Algorithmic Problems , volume 843

    Denis Osin. Relatively Hyperbolic Groups: Intrinsic Geometry, Algebraic Properties, and Algorithmic Problems , volume 843. American Mathematical Soc., 2006

    2006

  24. [32]

    Algorithmic properties of relatively hyperbolic groups

    Donovan Yves Rebbechi. Algorithmic properties of relatively hyperbolic groups . PhD thesis, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    On the profinite topology on a free group

    Luis Ribes and Pavel A Zalesskii. On the profinite topology on a free group. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , 25(1):37--43, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    G. C. Shephard. Regular complex polytopes. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , s3-2(1):82--97, 1952

    1952

  27. [35]

    Convergence groups and G romov’s metric hyperbolic spaces

    Pekka Tukia. Convergence groups and G romov’s metric hyperbolic spaces. New Zealand J. Math. , 23(2):157, 1994

    1994

  28. [36]

    Acylindrical hyperbolicity for A rtin groups of dimension 2

    Nicolas Vaskou. Acylindrical hyperbolicity for A rtin groups of dimension 2. Geometriae Dedicata , 216(1):7, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    The product separability of the generalized free product of cyclic groups

    Shihong You. The product separability of the generalized free product of cyclic groups. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 56(1):91--103, 1997

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.