Abstract
Let be a random torsion-free nilpotent group generated by two random words of length in . Letting grow as a function of , we analyze the step of , which is bounded by the step of . We prove a conjecture of Delp, Dymarz, and Schafer-Cohen, that the threshold function for full step is .
A group is nilpotent if its lower central series
|
|
|
defined by , eventually terminates. The first index for which is called the step of . One may ask what a generic nilpotent group looks like, including its step. Questions about generic properties of groups can be answered with random groups, first introduced by Gromov [4]. Since Gromov’s original few relators and density models are nilpotent with probability 0, they cannot tell us about generic properties of nilpotent groups. Thus there is a need for new random group models that are nilpotent by construction.
Delp et al [1] introduced a model for random nilpotent groups, motivated by the observation that any finitely generated torsion-free nilpotent group can be embedded in the group of upper triangular integer matrices with ones on the diagonal [3]. Note that, since any finitely generated nilpotent group contains a torsion-free subgroup of finite index, we are not losing much by restricting our attention to torsion-free groups. (Another model is considered in [2]).
We construct a random subgroup of as follows.
Let be the elementary matrix with 1’s on the diagonal, a 1 at position and 0’s elsewhere.
Then
forms the standard generating set for . We call the entries at positions the superdiagonal entries. Define a random walk of length to be a product
|
|
|
where each is chosen independently and uniformly from . Let and be two independent random walks of length . Then is a random subgroup of . We have , and it is not hard to check that . If we say has full step.
Now let and grow as a function of . We say a proposition holds asymptotically almost surely (a.a.s.) if as . Delp et al. gave results on the step of , depending on the growth rate of with respect to .
To prove this requires a careful analysis of the nested commutators that generate . In Section 1, we give a combinatorial criterion for a nested commutator of ’s and ’s to be nontrivial. In Section 2, we show this criterion is satisfied asymptotically almost surely when are random walks.
1 Nested Commutators
Let be the lower central series of . We have
|
|
|
In particular, includes all -fold nested commutators of elements of . We restrict our attention to commutators where each factor is or .
Let be the -dimensional cube, or the set of all length binary vectors. For we define the norm and the concatenation . For example if and then .
We define a family of maps as follows.
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
|
|
|
|
(4) |
Thus for example . We omit the subscript when it is obvious.
To prove has full step it suffices to find an such that is nontrivial. We begin with Lemma 2.3 from [1], which gives a recursive formula for the entries of a nested commutator.
Lemma 1
Let . Then and we have
|
|
|
|
(5) |
and furthermore for .
In particular, for only the upper rightmost entry can be nonzero. From the formula it is clear that is a degree- polynomial in the superdiagonal entries of and . Let us state this more precisely and analyze the coefficients of the polynomial.
Lemma 2
Let . There exists a function such that for we have
|
|
|
|
(6) |
Furthermore, setting for we have a recursion
|
|
|
(7) |
with base cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that does not depend on . We also drop the subscript since it can be inferred from and .
Proof 1.3.
Abbreviate
|
|
|
We first prove inductively that there exist coefficients such that
|
|
|
|
The case is trivial.
Assume it holds for . Let , then we have
|
|
|
|
Expanding and , the first term is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly the second term is
|
|
|
Combining we get
|
|
|
|
And setting the lemma is proved for .
It is also easy to see inductively that for , so we may add the condition under the sum to get Equation 6.
We now have a strategy for choosing such that is nontrivial. In the random model, it may happen that for some . Define the vector by if and otherwise. For now assume . If we choose such that , then Equation 6 simplifies to
|
|
|
(8) |
If we assume there is no such that , the product of matrix entries is nonzero. So we just need to choose such that .
We can do this with some additional conditions on .
Lemma 1.4.
Let with . Write . Assume that for all , i.e., there are no adjacent 0’s, and that . Then there exists such that .
We will prove in section 2 that all assumptions used hold asymptotically almost surely.
Proof 1.5.
Using Equation 7, the following identities are easily verified by induction:
-
1.
If , then
|
|
|
-
2.
If with , then
|
|
|
-
3.
Let . If then
|
|
|
If then
|
|
|
-
4.
If then
|
|
|
Let . First assume is even. Applying identity 4 repeatedly we reduce to the case , then apply identity 1. Explicitly we have
|
|
|
|
(9) |
|
|
|
|
(10) |
If is odd, apply identity 3 once and proceed as before.
2 Asymptotics
In Section 1 we derived a combinatorial condition on the superdiagonal entries of and sufficient for to have full step. Define
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then to apply Lemma 1.4 we need that
-
1.
and are nonempty.
-
2.
.
-
3.
has no adjacent elements.
-
4.
.
If condition (1) does not hold, then Theorem 2 follows by a modification of Lemma 5.4 in [1].
We now show that in the random model, the superdiagonal entries satisfy conditions (2)-(4) asymptotically almost surely. Recall that and are random walks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where each is chosen independently and uniformly from the generating set
.
Define
|
|
|
(11) |
Then we have
|
|
|
(12) |
When , the superdiagonal entries behave roughly like independent random walks on .
We restate Corollary 3.2 from [1].
Lemma 2.6.
Suppose . Then uniformly for we have
|
|
|
Since and are i.d.d, we have , so by the union bound we have . Thus condition (2) holds a.a.s. For conditions (3) and (4) we will need a bound on the size of .
Lemma 2.7.
Fix . Then as .
Proof 2.8.
Define random variables
|
|
|
|
So . From
Lemma 2.6 we have and for .
Hence and .
By Chebyshev’s inequality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Observe that the distribution of is invariant under permutation. In other words, for a fixed set and a permutation on we have
|
|
|
and hence
|
|
|
Let be the number of sets of size with at least one pair of adjacent elements. We have
|
|
|
Let be the number of sets for which . Summing over the possible values of we have
|
|
|
One easily checks
|
|
|
For this is . On the other hand , so we are done.
Acknowledgements.
We thank Tullia Dymarz for suggesting this problem and for many helpful discussions.