Numerical studies of Thompson’s group F and related groups

Abstract

We have developed polynomial-time algorithms to generate terms of the cogrowth series for groups [Formula: see text], the lamplighter group, [Formula: see text] and the Brin–Navas group [Formula: see text]. We have also given an improved algorithm for the coefficients of Thompson’s group [Formula: see text], giving 32 terms of the cogrowth series. We develop numerical techniques to extract the asymptotics of these various cogrowth series. We present improved rigorous lower bounds on the growth-rate of the cogrowth series for Thompson’s group F using the method from [S. Haagerup, U. Haagerup and M. Ramirez-Solano, A computational approach to the Thompson group F, Int. J. Alg. Comp. 25 (2015) 381–432] applied to our extended series. We also generalise their method by showing that it applies to loops on any locally finite graph. Unfortunately, lower bounds less than 16 do not help in determining amenability. Again for Thompson’s group F we prove that, if the group is amenable, there cannot be a sub-dominant stretched exponential term in the asymptotics. Yet the numerical data provides compelling evidence for the presence of such a term. This observation suggests a potential path to a proof of non-amenability: If the universality class of the cogrowth sequence can be determined rigorously, it will likely prove non-amenability. We estimate the asymptotics of the cogrowth coefficients of F to be [Formula: see text] where [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]. The growth constant [Formula: see text] must be 16 for amenability. These two approaches, plus a third based on extrapolating lower bounds, support the conjecture [M. Elder, A. Rechnitzer and E. J. Janse van Rensburg, Random sampling of trivial words in finitely presented groups, Expr. Math. 24 (2015) 391–409, S. Haagerup, U. Haagerup and M. Ramirez-Solano, A computational approach to the Thompson group F, Int. J. Alg. Comp. 25 (2015) 381–432] that the group is not amenable.