No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Unions of Cockcroft two-complexes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2009
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
A combinatorial hypothesis is presented that serves as a necessary and sufficient condition for a union of connected Cockcroft two-complexes to be Cockcroft. This combinatorial hypothesis has a component that can be expressed in terms of the second homology of groups. The hypothesis is applied to the study of the third homology of groups.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Edinburgh Mathematical Society 1994
References
REFERENCES
1.Bogley, W. A. and Gutiérrez, M. A., Mayer-Vietoris sequences in homotopy of 2-complexes and in homology of groups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 77 (1992), 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Brandenburg, J. and Dyer, M., On J. H. C. Whitehead's aspherical question I, Comment. Math. Helv. 56 (1981), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Brandenburg, J., Dyer, M. and Strebel, R., On J. H. C. Whitehead's aspherical question II, in Low Dimensional Topology (Lomonaco, S., ed., Contemp. Math. 20, 1983), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Brown, R., Coproducts of crossed P-modules: Applications to second homotopy groups and the homology of groups, Topology 23 (1984), 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Cockcroft, W. H., On two-dimensional aspherical complexes, Proc. London Math. Soc. 4 (1954), 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Duncan, A. J., Ellis, G. and Gilbert, N. D., A Mayer–Vietoris sequence in group homology and the decomposition of relation modules (Heriott-Watt University and University College, Galway, 1992), preprint.Google Scholar
7.Dyer, M. N., Crossed modules and the second homotopy modules of two-complexes, in Combinatorial Group Theory and Homotopy in Low Dimensions (Hog-Angelloni, C., Metzler, W., and Sieradski, A. J., editors, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press), to appear.Google Scholar
9.Gersten, S. M., Dehn functions and l 1-norms of finite presentations, in Algorithms and Classification in Combinatorial Group Theory (Baumslag, G. and Miller, C. F. III, editors, MSRI 23, 1991).Google Scholar
10.Gilbert, N. D. and Howie, J., Threshold subgroups for Cockcroft 2-complexes (Heriot-Watt University, 1992), preprint.Google Scholar
11.Gilbert, N. D. and Howie, J., Cockcroft properties of graphs of 2-complexes, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh, to appear.Google Scholar
12.Gutiérrez, M. A. and Ratcliffe, J., On the second homotopy group, Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2) 32 (1981), 45–55.Google Scholar
15.Hopf, H., Fundamentalgruppe und zweite Bettische Gruppe, Comment. Math. Helv. 14 (1941), 257–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Hopf, H., Beitrage zur Homotopietheorie, Comment. Math. Helv. 17 (1945), 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Huck, G. and Rosebrock, S., A bicombing that implies a sub-exponential isoperimetric inequality, Proc. Edinburgh Math., to appear.Google Scholar
18.Huebschmann, J., Cohomology theory of aspherical groups and of small cancellation groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 14 (1979), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Lyndon, R. C., Cohomology theory of groups with a single defining relation, Ann. of Math. 52 (1950), 650–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Pride, S. J., Identities among relations of groups presentations, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Group Theory for a Geometrical Viewpoint, Trieste, 1990 (Ghys, E., Haefliger, A. and Verjovsky, A., eds., World Scientific Publishing, Singapore 1991), 687–717.Google Scholar
21.Pride, S. J., Examples of presentations which are minimally Cockcroft in several different ways, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 88 (1993), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access