Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:01:49.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Small non-Leighton two-complexes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

NATALIA S. DERGACHEVA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Leninskie gory, MSU, Moscow, Russia. and Moscow Center for Fundamental and Applied Mathematics e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
ANTON A. KLYACHKO
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Leninskie gory, MSU, Moscow, Russia. and Moscow Center for Fundamental and Applied Mathematics e-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How many 2-cells must two finite CW-complexes have to admit a common, but not finite common, covering? Leighton’s theorem says that both complexes must have 2-cells. We construct an almost (?) minimal example with two 2-cells in each complex.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society

0. Introduction

Leighton Theorem [Reference Leighton10] If two finite graphs have a common covering, then they have a common finite covering.

Alternative proofs and various generalisations of this result can be found, e.g., in [Reference Bass and Kulkarni2], [Reference Bridson and Shepherd4], [Reference Neumann14], [Reference Shepherd, Gardam and Woodhouse15], [Reference Woodhouse19], and references therein.

Does a similar result hold for any CW-complexes, i.e.

is it true that, if, for finite CW-complexes $K_1$ and $K_2$ , there exist a CW-complex K and cellular coverings $K_1\leftarrow K\to K_2$ , then there exists a finite CW-complex K with this property?

This natural question was posed (in other terms) in [Reference Abello, Fellows and Stillwell1] and [Reference Tucker16]. Notice the cellularity requirement. Surely, we would obtain an equivalent question if we replace this condition with a formally stronger combinatorialness one: the image of each cell is a cell. However, without the cellularity condition, the answer would be negative: indeed, the torus and the genus-two surface have no finite common coverings (as the fundamental group the genus-two orientable surface $\left\langle{x,y,z,t\;|\;[x,y][z,t]=1}\right\rangle$ contains no abelian subgroups of finite index), while the universal coverings of these surfaces are homeomorphic, because they are the plane. The cellularity condition rules out such examples: if we take, e.g., the standard one-vertex cell structures on the torus and genus-two surface, then, on the covering plane, we obtain:

  1. (i) the usual square lattice on the (Euclidean) plane (in the torus-case);

  2. (ii) and an octagonal lattice on the (Lobachevskii) plane (in the genus-two case);

(i.e. though the universal coverings are homeomorphic, the cell structure on them are principally different). This example cannot be saved by a complication of the cell structures on the torus and genus-two surface (as was noted in [Reference Abello, Fellows and Stillwell1] and [Reference Tucker16]; the authors of [Reference Abello, Fellows and Stillwell1] even conjectured that the answer to the (cellular version of) the question is positive).

Nevertheless, the answer turned out to be negative as was shown in [Reference Wise18] (and actually, much earlier in [Reference Wise17]); the complexes $K_1,\;K_2$ forming such a non-Leighton pair from [Reference Wise18] contain as few as six 2-cells each. In [Reference Janzen and Wise8], this number was reduced to four:Footnote 1

there exist two two-complexes containing four 2-cells each that have a common covering but have not finite common coverings.

(Henceforth, we omit the prefix “CW-” and word “cellular”: a complex means a CW-complex, and all mapping between complexes are assumed to be cellular in this paper.) The non-Leighton complexes $K_1$ and $K_2$ from [Reference Janzen and Wise8] are the standard complexes of the following group presentations $\Gamma_i$ , i.e. one-vertex complexes with edges corresponding to the generators and 2-cells attached by the relators:

\begin{align*}\Gamma_1=F_2\times F_2=\left\langle{a,b,x,y\;|\;[a,x],\;[a,y],\;[b,x],\;[b,y]}\right\rangle\ \hbox{ and }\\[4pt]\Gamma_2=\left\langle{a,b,x,y\;\bigg|\; axay,\;ax^{-1}by^{-1},\;ay^{-1}b^{-1}x^{-1},\;bxb^{-1}y^{-1}}\right\rangle .\end{align*}

Both of these complex are covered by the Cartesian product of two trees (Cayley graphs of the free group $F_2$ ); and no finite common cover exists, because the fundamental group of such hypothetical covering complex would embed in both groups $\Gamma_i$ as finite-index subgroups, but, in $\Gamma_1$ , any finite-index subgroup contains a finite-index subgroup which is the direct product of free groups, while $\Gamma_2$ has no such finite-index subgroups [Reference Janzen and Wise8] ( $\Gamma_2$ is not even residually finite [Reference Bondarenko and Kivva3], [Reference Caprace and Wesolek5]). The results of [Reference Janzen and Wise8] imply also a minimality of this example in the sense that:

if we restrict ourselves to complexes $K_i$ covered by products of trees, then four two-dimensional cells is the minimum among all non-Leighton pairs.

If we do not restrict ourselves, then smaller non-Leighton pairs arise.

Main Theorem (a simplified version). There exist two finite two-complexes containing two 2-cells each that have a common covering, but have not finite common coverings.

(Explicit forms of these two two-2-cell two-complexes can be found at the very end of this paper.) Thus, the only question remaining open concerns complexes with a single 2-cell. This question seems to be difficult (although it is closely related to the well-developed theory one-relator groups). The point is that a classification of one-relator groups up to commensurability is not an easy task even for the Baumslag–Solitar groups ${\rm BS}(n,m)\:\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{nd}=c^m}\right\rangle$ (though, in this special case, it was recently obtained [Reference Casals-Ruiz, Kazachkov and Zakharov6]). Henceforth, $x^{ky}\:\stackrel{\rm def}{=}y^{-1}x^ky$ , where x and y are elements of a group and $k\in{\mathbb Z}$ .

In conclusion, note that results on coverings of two-complexes can imply nontrivial facts about graphs, because one can “model” 2-cells in graphs by means of additional vertices and edges, see [Reference Bridson and Shepherd4]. Higher dimensional complexes are of little sense here: if complexes $K_1$ and $K_2$ form a non-Leighton pair, then their two-skeleta also form such a pair, as is easy to verify. A detailed exposition of the general theory of coverings and CW-complexes can be found, e.g., in [Reference Fomenko and Fuchs7].

1. Algebraic lemmata

The following fact is well known [Reference Meskin13], we give a short proof for the reader’s convenience.

Commutator Lemma. In the group $H={\rm BS}(3,5)=\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle,$ the commutator $h=[c^d,c]$ belongs to any finite-index subgroup.

Proof. Each finite-index subgroup contains a normal finite-index subgroup (see, e.g., [Reference Kargapolov and Merzljakov9]) Therefore, it suffices to show that h lies in the kernel of any homomorphism $\varphi\,{:}\,H\to K$ to any finite group K.

The elements $\varphi(c^3)$ and $\varphi(c^5)$ have the same order (because they are conjugate); hence, the order of $\varphi(c)$ is not divisible by three. Therefore, $\varphi(c)\in\left\langle{\varphi(c^3)}\right\rangle$ . Thus, $\varphi(c)^{\varphi(d)}\in\left\langle{\varphi(c)}\right\rangle$ and $h=[c^d,c]$ belongs to the kernel of $\varphi$ . This completes the proof.

Bottle Lemma. If a group G has a subgroup $\left\langle{a,b}\right\rangle=\left\langle{a,b\;\big|\;a^b=a^{-1}}\right\rangle\simeq{\rm BS}(1,-1),$ and the element b lies in all finite-index subgroups of G, then any finite-index subgroup of G contains a subgroup isomorphic to the Klein-bottle group ${\rm BS}(1,-1)$ .

Proof. Any finite-index subgroup contains all elements conjugate to b, because the intersection R of all finite-index subgroups is normal. Therefore, $a^2=b^{-1}b^a\in R$ and $\left\langle{a^2,b}\right\rangle\subseteq R$ It remains to note that $a^{2b}=a^{-2},$ and the groups $\left\langle{a^2}\right\rangle$ and $\left\langle{b}\right\rangle$ are infinite; hence, the subgroup $\left\langle{a^2,b}\right\rangle$ is isomorphic to ${\rm BS}(1,-1)$ , because,

in any group, infinite-order elements x and y such that $x^y=x^{-1}$ generate a subgroup isomorphic to the Klein-bottle group. (1)

Indeed, there is obvious epimorphism

\begin{equation*}\varphi\,{:}\,{\rm BS}(1,-1)=\left\langle{a,b}\right\rangle \longrightarrow \left\langle{x,y}\right\rangle.\end{equation*}

Any element $g\in{\rm BS}(1,-1)$ can be written in the form $g=a^kb^l$ . If $g=a^kb^l\in\ker\varphi$ , then $\ker\varphi\ni[b,g]=b^{-1}b^{-l}a^{-k}ba^kb^l=a^{\pm2k}.$ Therefore, $k=0$ (because $|\!\left\langle{x}\right\rangle\!|=\infty$ ). But then $l=0$ too, because $1=\varphi(g)=\varphi(b^l)=y^l$ , and $|\!\left\langle{y}\right\rangle\!|=\infty$ . Thus, $\ker\varphi=\{1\}$ and $\varphi$ is an isomorphism. This completes the proof.

No-Bottle Lemma. The amalgamated free product

\begin{equation*}G=\left\langle{a,c,d\;\bigg|\;[a,[c^d,c]]=1,\; c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle=\left\langle{a,b\;\big|\;[a,b]=1}\right\rangle\mathop*_{b=[c^d,c]}\left\langle{c,d\;\bigg|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle\end{equation*}

of the free abelian group and the Baumslag–Solitar group ${\rm BS}(3,5)$ contains no subgroups isomorphic to the Klein-bottle group $K={\rm BS}(1,-1)$ .

Proof. The group ${\rm BS}(3,5)$ does not contain subgroups isomorphic to K [Reference Levitt11] and is torsion-free. Therefore, applying once again (1), we obtain that the quotient

\begin{equation*}G/\left\langle\langle{{[a,G]}}\right\rangle\rangle=\left\langle{a}\right\rangle_\infty\times{\rm BS}(3,5)\end{equation*}

by the normal closure $\left\langle\langle{{[a,G]}}\right\rangle\rangle$ of the set [a, G] of commutators of a and all elements of G has no nonidentity elements conjugate their inverse. Therefore, any element of G conjugate to its inverse lies in $N=\left\langle\langle{{[a,G]}}\right\rangle\rangle$ . This subgroup intersects trivially the free factors (and their conjugates). Thus, all elements of N have length at least two, and the following conjugation criterion (see, e.g., [Reference Lyndon and Schupp12]) applies:

two cyclically reduced words of length $\ge2$ in an amalgamated free product $U\mathop*\limits_WV$ are conjugate if and only if one of them can be obtained from the other by a cyclic permutation and subsequent conjugation by an element of W.

In $U\mathop*\limits_WV$ , an equality of reduced words $u_1v_1\cdots=u_1^{\prime}v_1^{\prime}\cdots$ implies the equalities of the double cosets $Wu_1W=Wu_1^{\prime}W$ , $Wv_1W=Wv_1^{\prime}W, \dots$ $Wv_1W=Wv_1^{\prime}W$ Therefore, if a cyclically reduced word $x\in N\triangleleft\,\left\langle{a,b\;|\;[a,b]=1}\right\rangle\mathop*\limits_{b=[c^d,c]}\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle$ is conjugate to its inverse, then, for a letter $x_1$ of x, we obtain the equality $x_1=b^kx_1^{-1}b^l$ (because the map $f_{k,n}\,{:}\,i\mapsto k-i\pmod n$ from the set (of subscripts) $\{1,\dots,n\}$ to itself has either a fixed point, or an almost fixed point: $f_{k,n}(i)=i+1\pmod n$ for some i; the latter case would imply that $x_1=b^kx_2^{-1}b^l$ for some adjacent letters $x_1$ and $x_2$ of the reduced word x, which is impossible). Substituting $x_1=b^k\widehat{x}_1$ , we obtain $\widehat{x}_1^2=b^{l-k}$ ; thus:

  1. (i) either $\widehat{x}_1^2\in\left\langle{b}\right\rangle$ for some $\widehat{x}_1\in(\!\left\langle{a}\right\rangle_\infty\times\left\langle{b}\right\rangle_\infty\!)\setminus\left\langle{b}\right\rangle$ ;

  2. (ii) or $\widehat{x}_1^2\in\left\langle{[c^d,c]}\right\rangle$ for some $\widehat{x}_1\in\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle\setminus\left\langle{[c^d,c]}\right\rangle$ .

The first is impossible of course. The impossibility of the second case can be verified, e.g., as follows:

  1. (i) the quotient group $Q=\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle/\left\langle\left\langle{{[c^d,c]}}\right\rangle\right\rangle$ is torsion-free; indeed, Q is the HNN-extension $Q\ =\ \left\langle{c,e,d\;|\;[e,c]\ =\ 1,\; e^3\ = \ c^5,\; c^d=e}\right\rangle$ of the abelian group $A=\left\langle{c,e\;|\;[e,c]\,=\,1,\;\ e^3\,=\,c^5}\right\rangle$ , which is torsion-free (moreover, it is easy to verify that $A\simeq{\mathbb Z}$ and $Q\simeq{\rm BS}(3,5)$ );

  2. (ii) therefore, $\widehat{x}_1$ lies in the normal closure $F=\left\langle\left\langle{{[c^d,c]}}\right\rangle\right\rangle$ , which is a free group, because, by the Karrass–Solitar theorem (see, e.g., [Reference Lyndon and Schupp12]), any subgroup of an HNN-extension is free if it intersects conjugates of the base trivially. It remains to show that $[c^d,c]$ is not a square in F (because in a free group an inclusion $\alpha^2\in\left\langle\beta\right\rangle$ implies that $\left\langle{\alpha,\beta}\right\rangle$ is cyclic by the Nielsen–Schreier theorem and, hence, $\alpha\in\left\langle\beta\right\rangle$ if $\beta$ is not a square). The commutator $[c^d,c]$ is not a square in F, because, assuming the contrary and noting that automorphic images of squares are squares too, we obtain $F=\left\langle\left\langle{{[c^d,c]}}\right\rangle\right\rangle=\left\langle\left\langle{{\widehat{x}^2}}\right\rangle\right\rangle\subseteq\left\langle{\{f^2\;\;|\;\;f\in F\}}\right\rangle,$ which cannot hold in a nontrivial free group F. This completes the proof.

2. Proof of the main theorem

Take the fundamental groups of the torus and the Klein bottle:

\begin{equation*}G_1={\rm BS}(1,1)=\left\langle{a,b\;|\;[a,b]=1}\right\rangle\ \hbox{and}\ G_{-1}={\rm BS}(1,-1)=\left\langle{a,b\;\bigg|\;a^b=a^{-1}}\right\rangle\end{equation*}

and consider the amalgamated free products $H_\varepsilon=G_\varepsilon\mathop*\limits_{b=h}H$ of $G_\varepsilon$ and a group

\begin{equation*}H=\left\langle{X\;|\;R}\right\rangle\supseteq\left\langle{h}\right\rangle_\infty\end{equation*}

(henceforth $\varepsilon=\pm1$ ). Let $K_\varepsilon$ be the standard complex of the (standard) presentation of $H_\varepsilon$ :

\begin{equation*}H_\varepsilon=\left\langle{\{a\}\sqcup X\;\bigg|\;\{a^{\widehat{h}}a^{-\varepsilon}\}\sqcup R}\right\rangle,\end{equation*}

where $\widehat{h}$ is a word in the alphabet $X^{\pm1}$ representing the element $h\in H$ .

The Cayley graphs of $G_\varepsilon$ are isomorphic surely (as abstract undirected graphs), the same is true for the universal coverings of the standard complexes of presentations of the groups $G_\varepsilon$ (these covering complexes are planes partitioned on squares, Figure 1).

Fig. 1. Universal coverings of the standard complexes of presentations $G_1$ (left) and $G_{-1}$ (right); vertical/horizontal edge are labelled by a and b, respectively; each small square is filled with a 2-cell.

A slightly less trivial observation is that, for groups $H_\varepsilon$ , the universal coverings are isomorphic too:

for any infinite-order element h of any group H, the universal coverings of complexes $K_\varepsilon$ are isomorphic. (*)

In what follows, we explain this simple fact in details; the readers who regard this fact as obvious, can skip to Observation $(^{**})$ .

It suffices to show that some coverings $\widehat{K}_\varepsilon\to K_\varepsilon$ have isomorphic $\widehat{K}_\varepsilon$ ; we prefer to take the coverings corresponding to the normal closure $\left\langle\!\langle{{a}}\right\rangle\!\rangle$ of $a\in H_\varepsilon$ . In explicit form, these complexes $\widehat{K}_\varepsilon$ are the following ones:

  1. (i) the vertices are elements of H;

  2. (ii) the edges with labels from X are drawn as in the Cayley graph of the group H: an edge with label $x\in X$ go from each vertex $h'\in H$ to the vertex $h'x\in H$ ;

  3. (iii) in addition, to each vertex $h'\in H$ , a directed loop (edge) $a_{h'}$ labelled by a is attached;

  4. (iv) to each cycle whose label is a relator from R, an oriented 2-cell is attached;

  5. (v) to each cycle with label $a^{\widehat{h}}a^{-\varepsilon}$ , an oriented 2-cell (a special cell) is attached; thus, going along the boundary of a special cell in the positive direction, we meet two edges labelled by a, namely, $a_{h'}$ and $a_{h'h}^{-\varepsilon}$ , where, as usual, $a_{h'h}^{-1}$ means that the edge $a_{h'h}$ is traversed against its direction.

The isomorphism $\Phi\,{:}\,{\widehat{K}_1}\to\widehat{K}_{-1}$ is the following:

  1. (i) the vertices, edges with labels from X and nonspecial 2-cells (corresponding to relators from R) are mapped identically;

  2. (ii) to define the mapping $\Phi$ on edges labelled by a and special 2-cells, we choose a set T of left-coset representatives of $\left\langle{h}\right\rangle$ in H, and put $\Phi(a_{th^k})=a_{th^k}^{(-1)^k}$ for all $t\in T$ and $k\in{\mathbb Z}$ (i.e., in each coset, each second loop labelled by a is inverted); then the mapping of singular cells are defined naturally: a cell of $\widehat{K}_1$ with edges $a_{h'}$ and $a_{h'h}^{-1}$ on its boundary is mapped to the cell of $\widehat{K}_{-1}$ containing $a_{h'}$ and $a_{h'h}$ on its boundary.

The next simple observation is that:

if $h\in H$ belongs to all finite-index subgroups of H, and the complexes $K_\varepsilon$ have a finite common covering, then the group $H_1$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to the Klein-bottle group ${\rm BS}(1,-1)$ .(**)

Indeed, in $H_{-1}$ , the element $b=h$ is contained in all subgroups of finite index (because the intersection of each such subgroup with H is of finite index in H and, therefore, contains h). By the bottle lemma (applied to $G=H_{-1}$ ), we obtain that each finite-index subgroup contains a subgroup isomorphic to the Klein-bottle group. It remains to note that, if a finite complex $\widehat{K}$ covers $K_1$ and $K_{-1}$ , then its fundamental group $\pi_1(\widehat{K})$ embeds into $\pi_1(K_\varepsilon)=H_\varepsilon$ as a finite-index subgroup.

Now, we take a particular group H, namely, let H be the Baumslag–Solitar group: $H={\rm BS}(3,5)=\left\langle{c,d\;\big|\;c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle,$ and let $h\in H$ be the commutator: $h=[c^d,c].$ This element h is contained in any finite-index subgroup of H by the commutator lemma. According to $(^{**})$ , this means that, if complexes $K_\varepsilon$ would have a common finite covering, then $H_1=\left\langle{a,c,d\;\big|\;[a,[c^d,c]]=1,c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle$ would contain the Klein-bottle group as a subgroup, which contradicts the no-bottle lemma. Therefore, there are no finite common coverings for complexes $K_\varepsilon$ ; while an infinite common covering exists according to $(\!*\!)$ . Thus, the following fact is proven.

Main Theorem. The standard complexes of presentations

\begin{equation*}H_\varepsilon=\left\langle{a,c,d\;\bigg|\;a^{[c^d,c]}=a^\varepsilon,\; c^{3d}=c^5}\right\rangle,\end{equation*}

where $\varepsilon=\pm1$ , containing two 2-cells and one vertex, and three edges have a common covering, but have no finite common coverings.

Footnotes

This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 22-11-00075.

1 although the authors of [Reference Janzen and Wise8] did not pursue this purpose; it was a byproduct of their results.

References

Abello, J., Fellows, M. R. and Stillwell, J. C.. On the complexity and combinatorics of covering finite complexes. Australas. J. Combin. 4 (1991), 103112.Google Scholar
Bass, H. and Kulkarni, R.. Uniform tree lattices. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3:4 (1990), 843902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondarenko, I. and Kivva, B.. Automaton groups and complete square complexes. Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics, 16:1 (2022), 305332. See also arXiv: 707.00215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridson, M. and Shepherd, S.. Leighton’s theorem: extensions, limitations, and quasitrees. Algebraic and Geometric Topology (to appear). See also arXiv: 009.04305.Google Scholar
Caprace, P.-E. and Wesolek, P.. Indicability, residual finiteness, and simple subquotients of groups acting on trees. Geometry and Topology 22:7 (2018), 41634204. See also arXiv: 708.04590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casals-Ruiz, M., Kazachkov, I. and Zakharov, A.. Commensurability of Baumslag–Solitar groups. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 70:6 (2021), 25272555. See also arXiv: 1910.02117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fomenko, A. and Fuchs, D.. Homotopical topology, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Math. vol. 273 (Springer, Cham, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, D. and Wise, D. T.. A smallest irreducible lattice in the product of trees. Algebraic and Geometric Topology 9:4 (2009), 21912201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kargapolov, M. I. and Merzljakov, Yu. I.. Fundamentals of the theory of groups. Graduate Texts in Math. 62 (Springer, 1979).Google Scholar
Leighton, F. T.. Finite common coverings of graphs. J. Combin. Theory, Series B 33:3 (1982), 231238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, G.. Quotients and subgroups of Baumslag–Solitar groups. J. Group Theory, 18:1 (2015), 143. See also arXiv: 308.5122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyndon, R. and Schupp, P.. Combinatorial Group Theory (Springer, 2015).Google Scholar
Meskin, S.. Nonresidually finite one-relator groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 164 (1972), 105114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, W. D.. On Leighton’s graph covering theorem. Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics, 4:4 (2010), 863872. See also arXiv: 906.2496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, S., Gardam, G. and Woodhouse, D. J.. Two generalisations of Leighton’s Theorem, arXiv:1908.00830.Google Scholar
Tucker, T. W.. Some topological graph theory for topologists: A sampler of covering space constructions. In: Latiolais P. (eds) Topology and Combinatorial Group Theory. Lecture Notes in Math., 1440 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990).Google Scholar
Wise, D. T.. Non-positively curved squared complexes: Aperiodic tilings and non-residually finite groups. PhD. thesis. Princeton Univeristy (1996).Google Scholar
Wise, D. T.. Complete square complexes. Comment. Math. Helv. 82:4 (2007), 683724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, D.. Revisiting Leighton’s theorem with the Haar measure. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 170:3 (2021), 615623. See also arXiv: 806.08196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Universal coverings of the standard complexes of presentations $G_1$ (left) and $G_{-1}$ (right); vertical/horizontal edge are labelled by a and b, respectively; each small square is filled with a 2-cell.