Math 2.0

Lemma

Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups

Statement

This version of the ping-pong lemma ensures that several subgroups of a group acting on a set generate a free product. The following statement appears in Olijnyk and Suchchansky (2004), and the proof is from de la Harpe (2000).

Let G be a group acting on a set X and let H1, H2, ..., Hk be subgroups of G where k ≥ 2, such that at least one of these subgroups has order greater than 2. Suppose there exist pairwise disjoint nonempty subsets X1,X2,...,XkX_{1}, X_{2}, ...,X_{k} of XX such that the following holds:

  • For any i≠si \ne s and for any hh in HiH_{i}, h≠1h \ne 1 we have h(Xs)⊆Xih(X_{s}) \subseteq X_{i}.

Then

⟨H1,…,Hk⟩=H1∗⋯∗Hk.\langle H_1,\dots, H_k\rangle=H_1\ast\dots \ast H_k.

Reading path

To understand this page from the ground up, read these 2 pages in order. The foundations come first. The path takes the proof Proof of Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups.

Show the path as a graph
Each page uses the pages above it. The colour of the bar on a box shows how strong the evidence is, and the box also gives it as text. The list has the same pages.
  • no evidence level
  1. Proof of Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups proof
  2. Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups statement

Further reading

  1. Wikipedia, page 18786361, revision 1361203357, Ping-pong lemma, section Formal statements > Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups. adopted
About this page
TagK71BN4C02T
URIm2://K71BN4C02T
Kindstatement, lemma
WritingW0 stub
StatusThis copy of the site has no build data. Run m2 status K71BN4C02T.
Changed4 November 2026

Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub

What this page needs for W1

  • edge uses out: each definition that the statement needs (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.

What links here

Proofs