# Some ArXiv findings, Jan. 30

First, a disclaimer: these are not necessarily recent ArXiv postings.  I’ve been keeping track of papers I find interesting since the fall, and am just now getting around to taking a look at most of them.  So let’s get to it, shall we?

$C(6)$ groups do not contain $\mathbb{F}_2 \times \mathbb{F}_2$

Hadi Bigdely (McGill) and Daniel T. Wise (McGill)

I have used small cancellation theory in my own research, and so papers on the topic naturally catch my eye.  The development here is very geometric in nature, with talk of “the standard 2-complex of a presentation”, as opposed to the more combinatorial approach found in Lyndon and Schupp which I am more familiar with.  The paper includes a reference to a paper of McCammond and Wise which provides some introduction to the more geometric way of viewing small cancellation theory (although this paper contains some basic definitions as well); this could prove useful for learning this approach.

As far as the main result, it’s in the title.  Why is this notable?  I’ll paraphrase from the introduction.  A group $G$ associated with a finite 2-complex satisfying the small cancellation condition $C(p)-T(q)$ (I will abuse notation slightly and call such a group a $C(p)-T(q)$ group) with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}<\frac{1}{2}$ is guaranteed to be word-hyperbolic.  However, we are also interested in cases where we have a group as above except with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{2}$.  For example, this happens for $C(6)-T(3)$ groups and $C(4)-T(4)$ groups.  Here we can not say that $G$ is word hyperbolic.

One way hyperbolicity might fail is if the group contains $\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$ as a subgroup, and containing $\mathbb{F}_2 \times \mathbb{F}_2$ as a subgroup is an extremely bad version of this.  This can happen with a $C(4)-T(4)$ group, since $\mathbb{F}_2 \times \mathbb{F}_2$ is such a group.  So the main result says something like “$C(6)-T(3)$ groups can not fail to be hyperbolic as badly as $C(4)-T(4)$ groups can.”

Full groups and soficity

Gabor Elek (Alfred Renyi Institute of Mathematics)

Full groups and sofic groups are two topics I should know more about.  Here they are in the same paper.  The main result is that the full group of a sofic equivalence relation is a sofic group.  Full groups have come up in a lot of interesting places lately, and I really need to spend more time with them.  I feel the same way about sofic groups.  Unfortunately I don’t think that this is the place to start.