Classifying Spaces and Boundaries for Relatively Hyperbolic Groups

58 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Splittings and automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups (2012, methodology): “ing space. Proof. This follows from Corollary 4.4 if G is one-ended. In general, we write G = G1 ∗ ··· ∗ Gq ∗ F with Gℓ one-ended and F free. All groups Gℓ and Gℓ/Z(Gℓ) have a ﬁnite classifying space [Dah03a], so we can apply Theorem 5.2 of [GL07b]. (We mention here that the arguments given in [GL07”
Boundary amenability of relatively hyperbolic groups (2005, methodology): “ﬁnity and represents an element in ∂X, which is denoted by p+. Thanks to the BCP property, for every x ∈ X(G,H) and y ∈ ∂X, there exists a geodesic ray p in X(G,H) which connects x to y (Lemma 3.2 in [Da1]). We recall the topology of X¯ = X(G,H)∪∂X. With this topology, X¯ is metrizable [GH], but is ”
Limit groups for relatively hyperbolic groups. I. The basic tools (2004, methodology): “Bowditch [6] gave two definitions, equivalent to Gromov’s and Farb’s, respectively (see [11] for a proof of the equivalence of the definitions).”
Combination of convergence groups (2002, background): “Corollary 0.5 Every limit group admits a Z–structure in the sense of Bestvina ([2], [ 9 ]).”
Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups (2006, background): “(This also follows from the construction of the relative Rips complex in [8].”