Comparison between the two equivalent models of the left factor used in the Miller--Tancer amalgam argument.
Amalgam.LeftFactor P is the paper-like bracketing
P.Group * FreeGroup {alpha, beta},
whereas LeftNormalForm.MillerLeft P.Group brackets the same three free
factors as
(P.Group * <beta>) * <alpha>.
For the injectivity argument we only need the canonical homomorphism from the first model to the second and its action on the five distinguished elements.
The old presented group included into the base of the nested model.
Equations
Instances For
Send the two new generators of the paper-like left factor to the
corresponding alpha and beta in the nested normal-form model.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Reassociate the left factor, with the generator convention required by the five basis elements.
Equations
Instances For
The comparison sends the paper's five left-hand amalgamating elements to the exact five elements used by the nested normal-form proof.
Injectivity in the nested normal-form model implies injectivity of the paper-like left map.
The nontrivial half of the Miller--Tancer construction, specialized
to one extra relation z that normally generates the old group.
The two lists of five words freely generate subgroups of the left and right
factors. Identifying those subgroups forms a free product with amalgamation.
The old group embeds in that pushout, so a nontrivial w remains nontrivial
after the four new relations are imposed.
Both models use the same shared right-basis lift.
Reduce the nontriviality implication to injectivity of the left list of five amalgamating words.
If w is nontrivial in the old presentation, its transformed presentation
is nontrivial. This is the amalgamated-free-product argument in the proof of
Tancer's Theorem 9, for the Miller commutator variant used in the paper.