Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 8 min ago
PreprintCC BY 4.0arXiv

Cayley-graph density of Thompson's group F: local deletions and finite-window bounds

Abstract

Let Γ be the Cayley graph of Thompson's group F with its standard generators. Belk and Brown constructed finite marked-forest subgraphs of limiting density 7/2, and Guba showed that deleting certain low-degree vertices gives density greater than $3.5004$. We refine this approach in two directions. First, a deterministic interval-deletion rule followed by root-sensitive triple and pair deletions yields finite induced subgraphs with dens(Γ)>3.50074529. The interval rule is evaluated by a nine-state recurrence, while the simultaneous deletion conditions created by split and merge operations are computed exactly by a common-suffix first-passage argument. Second, we determine the joint distribution of the categories of a tree and its two children and reduce optimization over every fixed category-window retention rule to a weighted densest-subgraph problem. An explicit edge-allocation certificate shows that, for every fixed a≥0, the optimal limiting density of a rule depending on the window [−a,1] is exactly 7/2. Thus arbitrary finite left context together with one right-hand category does not improve the Belk--Brown limit, whereas the root-sensitive whole-segment construction does. All constants are explicit elements of ℚ(√3,√(2√3−1)).

Related

  1. The fractional Calderón problem on finite Cayley graphs
    Li Li
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textAnalysis & PDEsarXiv
  2. Cutoff for random Cayley graphs of finite groups
    Haoran Zhu
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textAlgebra & number theoryProbabilityarXiv
  3. DL, DQ Spectrum and Eigenvalue-free Interval of Cayley Graphs over Finite Nilpotent Groups
    Pallabi Manna, Santanu Mandal
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textAlgebra & number theoryarXiv
  4. Heat kernels on Cayley graphs of free products of finite groups
    Kamila Kashaeva
    arXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textAlgebra & number theoryAnalysis & PDEsarXiv
  5. Sampling Density for Multi-window STFT Phase Retrieval
    Wenchang Sun, Mengxuan Zhou
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textAnalysis & PDEsarXiv
BibTeX
@misc{prellberg2026cayleygraph,
  title = {{Cayley-graph density of Thompson's group F: local deletions and finite-window bounds}},
  author = {Thomas Prellberg},
  howpublished = {arXiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.12290},
  eprint = {2609.12290},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12290},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Cayley-graph density of Thompson's group F: local deletions and finite-window bounds
AU  - Thomas Prellberg
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/15
PB  - arXiv
DO  - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.12290
UR  - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12290
AB  - Let Γ be the Cayley graph of Thompson's group F with its standard generators. Belk and Brown constructed finite marked-forest subgraphs of limiting density 7/2, and Guba showed that deleting certain low-degree vertices gives density greater than $3.5004$. We refine this approach in two directions. First, a deterministic interval-deletion rule followed by root-sensitive triple and pair deletions yields finite induced subgraphs with dens(Γ)>3.50074529. The interval rule is evaluated by a nine-state recurrence, while the simultaneous deletion conditions created by split and merge operations are computed exactly by a common-suffix first-passage argument. Second, we determine the joint distribution of the categories of a tree and its two children and reduce optimization over every fixed category-window retention rule to a weighted densest-subgraph problem. An explicit edge-allocation certificate shows that, for every fixed a≥0, the optimal limiting density of a rule depending on the window [−a,1] is exactly 7/2. Thus arbitrary finite left context together with one right-hand category does not improve the Belk--Brown limit, whereas the root-sensitive whole-segment construction does. All constants are explicit elements of ℚ(√3,√(2√3−1)).
ER  -