Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Eventually Self-Similar Groups acting on Fractals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a finiteness-property inheritance theorem for eventually self-similar groups acting on fractal limit spaces, and uses it to show that airplane and dendrite rearrangement groups have type F∞.

desk verdict Substantial framework paper with new F∞ results; the proof gap in Proposition 5.15 (flagness) is real and needs a fix, but the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04138 v1 pith:FJTL4WAE submitted 2024-12-05 math.GR

Davide Perego , Matteo Tarocchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GR MSC 20F6520E0837B10
keywords eventuallyself-similargroupsrearrangementhyperedgereplacementsystemsfractallimitspacesfinitenesspropertiestypeF∞π-contractionsWażewskidendrites
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 builds fractals as quotients of edge shifts by a gluing relation, starting from almost expanding hyperedge replacement systems, and defines eventually self-similar (ESS) groups of homeomorphisms of these fractals. Its central theorem says that if the replacement system is m-contractive—meaning every sufficiently deep expansion admits m simultaneous independent contractions—and the small self-similar component groups have type F_{⌊m/d⌋}, then the whole ESS group has that same finiteness property. This yields new proofs that the airplane and dendrite rearrangement groups have type F∞, that a dendrite group combined with the Grigorchuk group is finitely generated, and that certain edge-shift ESS groups have type F∞. The result also recovers known finiteness theorems for several Thompson-like groups while covering examples an earlier replacement-system theorem did not reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the almost expanding hyperedge replacement system, which builds a compact metrizable limit space as a quotient of an edge shift by a gluing relation. Around it the paper assembles a category C_{R,G} whose morphisms are expansions, contractions, and labeled π-hypergraph isomorphisms (isomorphisms that may permute boundary vertices while tracking the self-similar tuple's action), and the ESS group is the fundamental group of this category. The finiteness transfer runs through π-contractions, the inverse of a hyperedge expansion up to such boundary permutations, and through the simplicial complexes K_x whose vertices are equivalence classes of simple π-contractions and whose simplices are parallel families. The theorem reduces the problem to counting parallel π-contractions in hypergraph expansions and to the component groups' type F_n; the complexes' connectivity then comes from a grounded-flag-complex criterion, where a flag complex is one in which every pairwise-compatible finite set of vertices spans a simplex.

What would settle it

Take any almost expanding replacement system and enumerate a hypergraph expansion whose complex K_x contains three pairwise-adjacent vertices (three pairwise-parallel π-contractions) with no 2-simplex containing all three; such an empty triangle would directly contradict the flagness claim of Proposition 5.15 and break the connectivity bound used in Theorem 5.20.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.20: for an almost expanding replacement system R and a compatible self-similar tuple G, if R is m-contractive and every group in G has type F_{⌊m/d⌋}, then the ESS group E_R^G has type F_{⌊m/d⌋}; in particular, ∞-contractivity together with F∞ component groups gives F∞. The proof encodes E_R^G as the fundamental group of a category of labeled π-hypergraph isomorphisms, expansions, and contractions, and verifies the hypotheses of a general Ore-category/Garside-family theorem; the stabilizers inherit F_n from the tuple groups, and the connectivity input comes from counting parallel π-contractions. The advertised applications are that the airplane rearrangement group and the dendrite rearrangement groups have type F∞, that the dendrite-based extension of the Grigorchuk group is finitely generated, and that certain ESS groups of edge shifts have type F∞, partially answering a question from [Dea21].

Load-bearing premise

The chain from many parallel π-contractions to the required connectivity of the auxiliary complexes depends on the unproved assertion that the complex K_x is flag, so if that assertion fails the main finiteness conclusion does not follow from m-contractivity alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The airplane rearrangement group T_A and the dendrite rearrangement groups G_n have type F∞, filling a gap for the airplane group and answering a question about the dendrite groups.
  • Any ESS group built from an ∞-contractive replacement system and F∞ component groups is F∞, which covers the edge-shift cases satisfying the normalization assumption from [Mat15] and partially answers questions from [Dea21].
  • The group E_{D_3}^G, mixing dendrite rearrangements with the Grigorchuk group, is finitely generated; whether it is finitely presented or F∞ is left open.
  • The theorem recovers F∞ for Higman–Thompson groups, Scott–Röver–Nekrashevych groups, and the quasi-automorphism groups Q_F, Q_T, Q_V, and gives a new proof that the Houghton groups H_n have type F_{⌊n/2⌋}, weaker than the known optimal bound.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unproved flagness assertion in Proposition 5.15 is the most delicate step: if an almost expanding system produced a complex K_x with three pairwise-parallel π-contractions but no common parallel triple, the m-contractivity-to-connectivity implication would need a weaker substitute, and checking small expansions directly is a natural test.
  • The finitary-tuple trick used for the airplane and dendrites suggests a general recipe: a replacement system that admits a finitary self-similar tuple capable of reversing edge orientations may yield rearrangement groups beyond the reach of the earlier replacement-system theorem.
  • Inserting self-similar groups with prescribed finiteness property F_m into the dendrite construction should produce dendrite ESS groups of type F_m for every m, potentially giving new examples separated by finiteness properties.
  • If the suspected connection to quasisymmetry groups of finitely ramified fractals is borne out, the finiteness results would link these algebraic properties to the dynamics of fractal homeomorphisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes Belk–Forrest replacement systems in two directions: hypergraphs instead of graphs, and an 'almost expanding' condition instead of expanding. It defines limit spaces of such systems and introduces eventually self-similar (ESS) groups E_R^G, which are groups of homeomorphisms of these limit spaces represented by diagrams combining a finitary asynchronous part with a self-similar tuple action. The main result, Theorem 5.20, states that if an almost expanding replacement system R is m-contractive for a compatible self-similar tuple G and all groups in G have type F_{⌊m/d⌋}, then E_R^G has type F_{⌊m/d⌋}. Applications include F∞ for the airplane rearrangement group and the dendrite rearrangement groups, finite generation for a dendrite/Grigorchuk ESS group, and F∞ for certain edge-shift ESS groups. The proof follows Witzel's Ore-category/Garside-family machine; most categorical hypotheses are verified in Sections 5.2–5.4, and the combinatorial heart is the connectivity of the complexes K_x in Sections 5.5–5.7.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantial contribution: it unifies and extends the Scott–Röver–Nekrashevych and rearrangement-group frameworks, and it supplies new finiteness results together with a partial answer to questions of Deaconu. The use of Witzel's machine and the explicit construction of the category C_{R,G} are clear strengths, and the advertised applications are genuinely interesting. However, the central argument currently rests on an unproved flagness assertion and on a stabilizer computation that does not follow as written; these issues are load-bearing for Theorem 5.20 and must be repaired before the manuscript can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.6, Proposition 5.15] The proposition asserts both that |E(x)| is the barycentric subdivision of K_x and that K_x is flag. The first assertion is sketched in one sentence; the second is stated without proof. This is load-bearing: Belk–Forrest's connectivity criterion (Theorem 5.16) applies only to flag complexes, so Corollary 5.19 and Theorem 5.20 depend on flagness. The missing point is not cosmetic: vertices of K_x are equivalence classes of simple π-contractions up to left multiplication by invertibles, so pairwise parallelism only gives compatible representatives for each pair, whereas flagness requires that every clique admits one simultaneous choice of representatives whose contracted subhypergraphs are pairwise disjoint. This simultaneous-representative statement is exactly what needs proof. Please provide a complete proof, or replace the argument with a different route to (⌊m/d⌋−1)-connectivity that does not require flagness.
  2. [§5.4, Proposition 5.10] The proof claims that C×(x,x) contains the unrestricted product ×_{e∈E_x} G_{c(e)} as a finite-index subgroup. This does not follow from the definitions and appears false in general. By condition (3) of Definition 4.9, each label l_e must agree with the vertex map f_V on the boundary ∂e; arbitrary elements of G_{c(e)} need not preserve ∂e, and labels on adjacent edges must be compatible at shared vertices. The subgroup of C×(x,x) that projects to the factors is therefore a fiber product over boundary restrictions, not the unrestricted product. Consequently Corollary 5.11, which provides the STAB hypothesis of Witzel's theorem, does not follow from the assumption that each G_c has type F_n. Either prove that the relevant boundary-stabilizer subgroups are finite index in G_c (which is not true for general self-similar groups such as the Grigorchuk group), or modify the hypotheses of Theorem 5.20 so that the STAB condition is obtained honestly.
  3. [§2.4, Theorem 2.18] Metrizability of the limit space is asserted with the proof deferred: the text says the proof is 'almost identical' to [BF19, Theorem 1.25] and 'we will not include it here.' Since the ESS groups are defined as homeomorphism groups of these limit spaces, and since the almost expanding case introduces isolated points and hyperedges, this is a foundational point that should either be proved or accompanied by a precise reference covering exactly this generalization. The sketch referring to Lemma 3.7 is helpful, but it does not by itself establish Hausdorffness of the quotient in the hyperedge case.
  4. [§6.1, Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6] The counting arguments proving ∞-contractivity for the dendrite and airplane replacement systems are too terse for the advertised applications. In Lemma 6.5, the claim that each internal vertex gives exactly (n−2)! π-contractions and that parallelism means centers are distinct and non-adjacent needs a precise proof. In Lemma 6.6, the step 'each contraction can be non-parallel to at most two others, so there must be C/3 ≥ V/12 parallel contractions' is not justified, and the quantities fV1, fV2, V1, V2 are introduced without formal definitions. Since Corollary 6.7 and Proposition 6.8 depend on these lemmas, please expand them into complete arguments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Theorem 3.10] The rationality of the gluing relation is stated as a theorem but the proof is explicitly not developed. If it is not needed for the main results, say so clearly; otherwise provide the proof or a precise reference that covers almost expanding hyperedge replacement systems.
  2. [§5.2, Definition 5.12] The notation F(−,y) is ambiguous: given the convention that morphisms in F go from the larger hypergraph to the smaller one, a simple contraction of y should be written as an element of F(z,y) for some z. Please clarify the variance.
  3. [§5.7, Lemma 5.18] In the proof, the sentence 'If C×(x,y) is not empty' should presumably read 'C×(y,x)', since y ∈ C×·x means C×(y,x) is nonempty.
  4. [§6.1, Lemma 6.6] The tree T_Γ and the variables V1, V2, fV1, fV2 are not defined precisely enough for the reader to follow the inequalities; in particular, the identity 2C = (fV1+V2)+(V1+fV2) should be derived explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor infelicities: 'finirary' in Proposition 6.4, 'dpictes' in Example 2.4, 'straighforward' in Remark 6.11, and 'a a' in Corollary 6.12. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finiteness theorem is assembled from external Ore-category/Garside machinery and independently verified m-contractivity; self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and non-circular. Theorem 5.20 combines Witzel's theorem (external), the Belk-Forrest flag-complex connectivity criterion (Theorem 5.16, external), and the structural results of Section 5. The m-contractivity hypothesis is a property of the replacement system and the chosen self-similar tuple, and in the applications it is verified by explicit counting arguments (Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6) rather than by assuming the desired F-property. The finiteness properties of the tuple groups are genuine inputs: Corollary 5.11 transfers F_n from the tuple groups to the stabilizers via the standard finite-index subgroup argument from Geoghegan, and Proposition 5.10 computes the stabilizer as a generalized wreath product containing a finite-index product of the G_c. The only self-citation invoked without full proof is Theorem 3.10 on rationality of the gluing relation, attributed to [PT24b] with the words 'we will not fully develop the details here'; however, this rationality result is not used in the proof of the Main Theorem or in the F_infinity applications, so it is not load-bearing. The genuinely concerning passage is Proposition 5.15, which asserts without proof that K_x is flag and that |E(x)| is its barycentric subdivision ('It is clear that this map is a bijection and that it maps pairs of adjacent vertices to simplices that are one contained in the other... Moreover, the simplicial complex K_x is flag.'). This is a possible correctness gap, because the Belk-Forrest criterion is stated only for flag complexes, but a missing proof is not circularity. The paper also explicitly concedes non-optimality (Houghton groups in Corollary 6.1(D) and the non-examples of Remark 6.11), which further indicates that the hypotheses are not being tuned to match the conclusions. Overall, no step reduces to its own input, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. It relies on standard theorems (Witzel's finiteness criterion, Belk-Forrest's grounded flag complex theorem, Geoghegan's invariance of finiteness properties) as black boxes. The extension of the rationality result from the authors' own [PT24b] is a domain assumption, since the proof is not developed here. The Grigorchuk group's finite generation is a known external fact used for Proposition 6.8. New defined objects (ESS groups, π-contractions) are the subject of the paper, evidenced by the internal theorems, not entities invoked to explain away a problem.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Witzel's theorem (Theorem 3.12 of [Wit19]) on finiteness properties from Ore categories with Garside families
    Used as a black box in Section 5 to derive F_n from the categorical hypotheses (STAB) and (LK); the paper verifies these hypotheses rather than proving the theorem.
  • standard math Belk-Forrest theorem on (mk,k)-grounded flag complexes (Theorem 4.9 of [BF19], quoted as Theorem 5.16)
    Used to convert the grounding property of K_x into connectivity; the theorem is cited as known.
  • domain assumption The rationality result of [PT24b] extends to almost expanding hyperedge replacement systems (Theorem 3.10)
    The paper explicitly says 'we will not fully develop the details here' and asserts the same argument works; this is the authors' own prior work being extended by assertion.
  • standard math Finiteness properties are invariant under finite-index subgroups and products (Geoghegan [Geo08], used in Corollary 5.11)
    Standard group theory fact invoked without proof.
  • domain assumption The Grigorchuk group is finitely generated (and not finitely presented), used in Subsection 6.2
    The paper relies on the known finite generation of the Grigorchuk group to conclude E_{D3}^G is finitely generated.
invented entities (2)
  • Eventually self-similar (ESS) groups E_R^G independent evidence
    purpose: New class of groups of homeomorphisms of fractal limit spaces, generalizing Scott-Röver-Nekrashevych groups and rearrangement groups
    A definition, not an explanatory entity; its usefulness is evidenced by the proved finiteness results (e.g., F∞ for airplane/dendrite), which are checkable consequences.
  • π-contractions (and simple π-contractions) independent evidence
    purpose: Combinatorial tool allowing contraction of a subhypergraph after a non-trivial permutation of boundary vertices, used to prove ∞-contractivity for systems with orientation changes
    A technical definition used to circumvent [BF19, Remark 4.6]; the evidence is the verification of m-contractivity in Lemmas 6.5 and 6.6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eventually Self-Similar Groups acting on Fractals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJTL4WAE

@misc{pith2026241204138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eventually Self-Similar Groups acting on Fractals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJTL4WAE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04138}
}
abstract

Generalizing work by Belk and Forrest, we develop almost expanding hyperedge replacement systems that build fractal topological spaces as quotients of edge shifts under certain ``gluing'' equivalent relations. We define ESS groups, which are groups of homeomorphisms of these spaces that act as a finitary asynchronous transformations followed by self-similar ones, akin to the action of Scott-R\"{o}ver-Nekrashevych groups on the Cantor space. We provide sufficient conditions for finiteness properties of such groups, which allow us to show that the airplane and dendrite rearrangement groups have type $F_\infty$, that a group combining dendrite rearrangements and the Grigorchuk group is finitely generated, and that certain ESS groups of edge shifts have type $F_\infty$ (partially addressing a question of Deaconu), in addition to providing new proofs of previously known results about several Thompson-like groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A π-graph isomorphism. • incident on a vertex v is v is a boundary vertex of e; • adjacent to an hyperedge f if e and f share some boundary vertex; • isolated if e is not adjacent to any other vertex. 1.1.2. Hypergraph π-isomorphisms. The notion of isomorphisms in the context of directed hypergraphs is the following. Definition 1.4. Given two hypergraphs A and B, a hypergraph isomorphism f: A → B is a collection (fV… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A π-hypergraph automorphism. Proposition 1.6. Given a σ-hypergraph isomorphism f : B → C and a τ -hypergraph isomorphism g : A → B, their composition f ◦ g is a π-hypergraph isomorphism A → C with πe := σg(e) ◦ τe. Proof. Clearly fV ◦gV : VA → VC and fE ◦gE : EA → EC are bijections, as they are compositions of bijections. Since fE and gE commute with ord, their composition does too. Let e ∈ EA. Using the point (2) o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A graph for the edge shift described in Example 1.9. Example 1.9. Consider the graph Γ depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The airplane replacement system A. 2.1. Hyperedge Replacement systems. Definition 2.1. A replacement rule of order d and color k is a rewriting rule e k,d −−→ R, where e is a k-colored d-edge with pairwise distinct boundary vertices and R is a hypergraph equipped with …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Houghton replacement systems Hn. Γ0 t l r X X = (l, r, t) R λR(3) λR(1) λR(2) y z x 1 2 3 1 = (λR(1), z, y) 2 = (z, λR(2), x) 3 = (y, x, λR(3)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Sierpinski triangle replacement system ST . Γ0 L R t c b L = (t, b, c) R = (t, c, b) R λR(3) λR(1) λR(2) y z x 1 2 3 1 = (λR(1), z, y) 2 = (z, λR(2), x) 3 = (y, x, λR(3)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Apollonian gasket replacement system AG. Definition 2.5. A hypergraph expansion of (R, Γ0) is a hypergraph Γ that is obtained via a sequence of hyperedge expansions of the base hypergraph Γ0, i.e., Γ = Γ0 ◁ e0 · · · ◁ em. As examples, Figures 8 and 9 show (hyper)gr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Graph expansion of A corresponding to Γ0 ◁ I ◁ B. L1 L2 L3 R t c b x y z L1 = (t, z, y) L2 = (z, b, x) L3 = (y, x, c) R = (t, c, b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hypergraph expansion of AG corresponding to Γ0 ◁ L. Observe that hyperedges of a hypergraph expansion Γ correspond to sequences of elements of EΓ0 and ERk (k ∈ C). This correspondence is built inductively: if e is a k-colored hyperedge of Γ, the hyperedges of Γ ◁ e cor…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The graph ΓC for the airplane replacement system A. With Definition 1.7 in mind, this construction prompts the following definition. Definition 2.7. Fix a replacement system (R, Γ0). • Its alphabet is the set A(R,Γ0) of hyperedges of the base and replacement hypergrap…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The limit space of the replacement system A. Image in public domain, available at this link Image by Todd Stedl, CC BY-SA 4.0, available at this link [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The limit spaces of the Sierpinski triangle replacement system ST and of the Apollonian gasket replacement system AG. non-isolated, point (4) immediately concludes the proof. We have thus proved the following essential fact. Proposition 2.16. The gluing relation of an…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cells for the replacement systems A, ST and AG. works for limit spaces of expanding 2-edge replacement systems, so we will not include it here. The only additional point of the proof concerns isolated points, whose treatment is trivial since they are themselves open. …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The gluing automaton for ST . for j = 1, . . . , n (in absence of multiple colors, such as in the previous examples, the first column is omitted). 3.5. Homeomorphisms of the Limit Space. The fact that limit spaces come equipped with a natural coding through the symbol…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Two diagrams r and a of EAGG, where G = ⟨ρ, ϕ⟩. As examples, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The graph expansion Γ0 ◁ I ◁ F of A that allows four simple π-contractions, with only a pair of parallel ones. For our category C, we let ρ(x) denote the number of hyperedges of x, which is readily seen to be a height function. Following Witzel’s notations from [Wit19…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The Wa˙zewski dendrite replacement systems Dn. have type F∞. The proofs are similar: they both consist of finding a finitary self￾similar tuple that allows to invert the edge orientation of blue edges and then show that, with these self-similar tuples, the groups are …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A diagram of EDn (⟨ϕ3⟩, G) and two expansions. some element that permutes non-trivially the boundary vertices of a cell (such as ϕn and ϕ∞ from our examples). 6.2. ESS Groups of Wa ˙zewski Dendrites. By Lemma 6.5, dendrite replace￾ment systems Dn are ∞-contractive if …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A graph-theoretical characterisation of subgroups of Thompson's group $V$

    math.GR 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A finitely generated group embeds in Thompson's group V if and only if it is the transition group of a context-free graph, which rules out intermediate-growth groups and the Basilica and Hanoi Towers groups.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Rearrangement groups of fractals

    [BF19] J. Belk and B. Forrest. “Rearrangement groups of fractals”. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372.7 (2019), pp. 4509–4552. issn: 0002-9947. doi: 10.1090/tran/7386. [BF24] James Belk and Bradley Forrest. “Quasisymmetries of finitely ramified Julia sets”

    work page doi:10.1090/tran/7386 2019

  2. [8]

    The first cohomology of a group with permutation module coefficients

    Australian National University, Department of Pure Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, I.A.S., Canberra, 1974, pp. vii+82. [Hou78] C. H. Houghton. “The first cohomology of a group with permutation module coefficients”. In: Arch. Math. (Basel) 31.3 (1978), pp. 254–258. issn: 0003-889X. doi: 10.1007/BF01226445. [Lac+18] Marcelo Laca, Iain Raeburn, Jacqu...

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01226445 1978

  3. [12]

    On Thompson Groups for Wa\.zewski Dendrites

    arXiv: 2310.14660. 40 REFERENCES [Tar24] M. Tarocchi. “Generation and simplicity in the airplane rearrangement group”. In: Groups Geom. Dyn. 18.2 (2024), pp. 603–634. doi: 10.4171/ ggd/772. [Wen15] Shuyi Weng. “Homeomorphism Groups of Fractals”. Senior project. Bard College,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [117]

    Finitely presented groups associated with expanding maps

    Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005, pp. xii+231. isbn: 0-8218-3831-8. doi: 10.1090/surv/117. [Nek18] Volodymyr Nekrashevych. “Finitely presented groups associated with expanding maps”. In: Geometric and cohomological group theory. Vol

    doi:10.1090/surv/117 2005

  5. [243]

    Finitely presented infinite simple groups

    Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2008, pp. xiv+473. isbn: 978-0-387-74611-1. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-74614-2 . [Hig74] G. Higman. “Finitely presented infinite simple groups”. Notes on Pure Mathematics, No

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74614-2 2008

  6. [275]

    Quasi-automorphisms of the infinite rooted 2-edge-coloured binary tree

    London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 229–245. isbn: 0-521-78889-7. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511600609.016. [NS18] Brita E. A. Nucinkis and Simon St. John-Green. “Quasi-automorphisms of the infinite rooted 2-edge-coloured binary tree”. In: Groups Geom. Dyn. 12.2 (2018), pp. 529–570. issn: 1661-7207,1661-7215. doi: 10 ....

    work page arXiv 2018

  7. [444]

    On the group of homeomorphisms of the Basilica

    London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam- bridge, 2018, pp. 115–171. isbn: 978-1-316-62322-0. [Ner24] Yury A. Neretin. “On the group of homeomorphisms of the Basilica”. In: Topology Proc. 64 (2024), pp. 121–128. issn: 0146-4124,2331-1290. [NS00] V. V. Nekrashevych and V. I. Sushchansky. “On confinal dynamics of rooted tree automorphi...

    work page 2024

  8. [2008]

    Orbit equivalence of topological Markov shifts and Cuntz-Krieger algebras

    url: https : //d-nb.info/990316440/34. [Mat10] Kengo Matsumoto. “Orbit equivalence of topological Markov shifts and Cuntz-Krieger algebras”. In: Pacific J. Math. 246.1 (2010), pp. 199–225. issn: 0030-8730,1945-5844. doi: 10.2140/pjm.2010.246.199. [Mat13] Kengo Matsumoto. “Classification of Cuntz-Krieger algebras by orbit equivalence of topological Markov ...

    work page arXiv 2010

Show all 13 references
  1. [2015]

    General topology

    url: https : / / e . math . cornell . edu / people / belk/projects/ShuyiWeng.pdf. [Wil70] Stephen Willard. “General topology”. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1970, pp. xii+369. [Wit19] Stefan Witzel. “Classifying spaces from Ore categorie...

    2019 doi

  2. [2021]

    Graph diagram groups

    arXiv: 2108.01178. [Del19] Miguel Alfredo Del R ´ ıo Palma. “Graph diagram groups”. PhD thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas,

    arXiv

  3. [2023]

    On Thompson Groups for Wa˙ zewski Dendrites

    arXiv: 2309.16613. [Tar23b] M. Tarocchi. “On Thompson Groups for Wa˙ zewski Dendrites”

    arXiv

  4. [2024]

    R¨ over’s simple group is of type F∞

    arXiv: 2310.17442. [BM16] James Belk and Francesco Matucci. “R¨ over’s simple group is of type F∞”. In: Publ. Mat. 60.2 (2016), pp. 501–524. issn: 0214-1493,2014-

    2016 arXiv

  5. [4350]

    Finiteness properties of groups

    doi: 10.5565/PUBLMAT\_60216\_07. [Bro87] K. S. Brown. “Finiteness properties of groups”. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 44.1-3 (1987), pp. 45–75. issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(87) 90015-6. [Dea21] Valentin Deaconu. “Higman-Thompson groups from self-similar groupoid actions”

    1987 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.