{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04591348708683176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01013214298366812, 'mean_word_length': 3.678157109711634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 3, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 13, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Geometric Proof of the Structure Theorem for Cyclic Splittings of Free Groups

We give a geometric proof of a well known theorem that describes splittings of a free group as an amalgamated product or HNN extension over the integers. The argument generalizes to give a similar description of splittings of a virtually free group over a virtually cyclic group.


Introduction
This paper describes one-edge splittings of free groups over (infinite) cyclic subgroups. Conversely, it describes when two free groups can be amalgamated along a cyclic subgroup to form a free group, or when an HNN-extension of a free group along a cyclic subgroup is free. Theorem 1.1 (Shenitzer, Stallings, Swarup). Let A and B be finitely generated free groups, and let C be a cyclic group.
• A * C B is free if and only if one of the injections of C into A and B maps C onto a free factor of the vertex group. • A * C is free if and only if, up to A-conjugation, the edge injections map C into independent free factors of A, and one of them is onto its factor.
This theorem is well known. The amalgamated product case is a theorem of Shenitzer [16]. The HNN case follows from a theorem of Swarup [19], who proves a more general theorem for splittings of free groups over free subgroups. Swarup attributes the case of cyclic splittings to Stallings. A published version of Stallings' proof appears later [18]. A simple topological proof appears in an unpublished paper of Bestvina and Feighn [1,Lemma 4.1]. Generalized versions appear in work of Louder [10] and Diao and Feighn [5].
We prove the theorem geometrically by showing that if the conditions are not satisfied then the "obvious" geometric model for the group is not a quasi-tree, so the group is not even virtually free. This proof generalizes to virtually free groups: Theorem 1.2. Let A and B be finitely generated virtually free groups, and let C be a virtually cyclic group.
• A * C B is virtually free if and only if one of the injections of C into A and B maps C onto a factor of the vertex group. • A * C is virtually free if and only if, up to A-conjugation, the edge injections map C into independent factors of A, and one of them is onto its factor.
We call an infinite subgroup H of a group G a factor if H is a vertex group in a graph of groups decomposition of G with finite edge groups, and we call two factors independent if they are the vertex groups in the same graph of groups decomposition of G with finite edge groups. Theorem 1.2 can also be derived from more general machinery for hyperbolicelliptic splittings, for example, [5,Theorem 7.2]. The proof given here is different.
The "if" direction of the theorem is easy. In the HNN case it may be necessary to change the stable letter to account for the A-conjugation, but this is an isomorphism. Now, replace the appropriate vertex group by a graph of groups in which C is a factor. The stabilizer of the C-edge is mapped isomorphically to the stabilizer of one of its end vertices, so this edge can be collapsed to give a graph of virtually free groups with finite edge groups, and such a group is virtually free.
The theorem says that reversing this edge collapse move is the only way to create a virtually free group as an amalgam over a virtually cyclic subgroup.
First we prove the torsion free case. There are three ideas: (1) If a maximal cyclic subgroup of a free group is not a free factor then Whitehead graphs for a generator of the subgroup are highly connected, in a certain sense. (2) The Whitehead graphs for the images of the amalgamated subgroup in the vertex groups record the intersection patterns of edge spaces in Bass-Serre complexes corresponding to the splitting. (3) High connectivity in the Whitehead graphs allows us to build sequences of paths in the Bass-Serre complex that connect the endpoints at infinity of some edge space but avoid arbitrarily large balls. Thus, there are distinct points in the boundary at infinity that lie in the same end of the group, but this does not happen in virtually free groups.
The proof relies, of course, on the important fact that virtually free groups can be characterized geometrically. Otherwise it is quite easy, using standard constructions of Whitehead graphs and Bass-Serre complexes and elementary arguments.
The proof in the general case is similar, with the Bass-Serre complexes coarsened. The main work is to characterize factors in virtually free groups and show the analog of item (1), which is done in Section 4.
Gilbert Levitt has pointed out that some virtually free groups do not have any virtually cyclic factors according to our definition. An example is Z/2Z * Z/3Z, see Example 4.7. Consequently, no HNN extension of Z/2Z * Z/3Z over a virtually cyclic group is ever virtually free, nor is any amalgam of two copies of Z/2Z * Z/3Z over a virtually cyclic group. Conversely, no non-trivial splitting of a virtually free group over a virtually cyclic subgroup ever has Z/2Z * Z/3Z as a vertex group.

Preliminaries
2.1. Free Groups and Whitehead Graphs. Let F = F n be a finite rank free group. A multiword w is a finite list of words in F . A free generating set B = {b 1 , . . . , b n } is called a basis. A multiword w = {w 1 , . . . , w k } is basic if there exist elements f i ∈ F such that {f i w i f i } is a subset of a basis. An element is indivisible if it is not a proper power of another element. Basic elements are often called primitive in the literature.
Let |g| B denote the word length of an element g with respect to the basis B. Let |[g]| B denote the minimum B-length of a conjugate of g.
The Whitehead graph Wh B ( * ){w} of an indivisible, cyclically reduced word w ∈ F with respect to a basis B is a graph with vertex set in bijection with the set B ∪ B of generators and their inverses. An edge is added from vertex x to vertex y for each occurrence of xy as a subword of w written as a reduced cyclic word in the letters B ∪ B.
We can similarly define a Whitehead graph for a finite list of words w. We will be interested in the conjugacy classes of maximal cyclic subgroups containing the words of w. Thus, to define Wh B ( * ){w} we choose a minimal set of indivisible, cyclically reduced words v = {v i } so that each w i ∈ w is conjugate into some v j . Then add edges as above for each v j . The graph constructed is independent of the choice of the v j 's.
Whitehead's Algorithm [20] produces a point in the Aut(F ) orbit of w of minimal B-length. An equivalent formulation for multiwords is that it chooses a basis B with respect to which Wh B ( * ){w} has the minimal number of edges.
The Whitehead graphs we deal with will not always be connected, so we make the following definitions: For a fixed basis B, the Cayley graph of F with respect to B is a tree T . The Whitehead graph can be generalized to a Whitehead graph Wh B (X ){w} over a compact subtree X of T . The vertex set is indexed by the elements of F that are adjacent to X in T . Vertices labeled u and v are connected by an edge for each worbit of uv as a subword of some power of w. One way to imagine this is that there is some cyclic permutation w of w so that if you start from the vertex u in T and follow the edge path that repeatedly spells out the word w , eventually you arrive at the vertex v. Thus, Wh B (X ){w} records the "line pattern" that conjugates of w make as they pass through X .
The classical Whitehead graph Wh B ( * ){w} is the generalized Whitehead graph such that the subtree X is just the identity vertex * ∈ T .
Manning [12] shows that generalized Whitehead graphs can be constructed from classical Whitehead graphs by a construction called splicing. It is an easy observation that splicing connected graphs with no cut vertices produces a connected graph with no cut vertices. This observation gives us the following generalization of Lemma 2.5, which will be used later as an inductive step in building detours: Lemma 2.7. If Wh B ( * ){w} has 2-connected components then Wh B (X ){w} has 2-connected components for every compact subtree X ⊂ T .

2.2.
Quasi-trees. The terms in this section are standard (see, for example, [3].) The following theorem gathers together various characterizations of virtually free groups: Theorem 2.8 (Geometric Characterization of Virtually Free Groups). Let G be a finitely generated group. Let X be a proper geodesic metric space quasi-isometric to G. The following are equivalent: (1) G is virtually free: it has a finite index free subgroup.
(2) G has a finite index normal free subgroup.
(3) G decomposes as a graph of virtually free groups with finite edge groups.
(4) G decomposes as a graph of finite groups. (5) X is a quasi-tree: there is a simplicial tree Γ and a (λ, )-quasi-isometry φ : X → Γ. (6) (Bottleneck Property) There is a constant ∆ > 0 so that for all x and y in X there exists a midpoint m such that d(x, m) = d(y, m) = 1 2 d(x, y) and such that any path from x to y passes through N ∆ (m). (7) (Bottleneck Property') For any K ≥ 1 and any C ≥ 0 there is a ∆ ≥ 0 so that for any x and y in X, any (K, C)-quasi-geodesic segment γ joining x to y, and any continuous path p from x to y, we have γ ⊂ N ∆ (p). (8) X is hyperbolic and the natural map from ∂X onto Ends(X) is a bijection.
(4) implies (5) since G acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on the Bass-Serre tree of the graph of groups decomposition.
The Bottleneck Property is due to Manning, who shows [11, Theorem 4.6] the equivalence of (5) and (6). Condition (7) is different version of the bottleneck property. It is just a coarsening of the fact that for any two points x and y in a simplicial tree there is a unique geodesic [x, y] joining them, and any path p joining x to y necessarily contains [x, y].
(5) =⇒ (7) is proven by pushing γ and p forward to Γ with φ, applying this fact, and then pulling back to X using a quasi-isometry inverse of φ.
If X is a quasi-tree it is hyperbolic and has a well defined boundary at infinity. (7) shows that no two boundary points lie in the same end, thus (5) implies (8).
Finally, if G is finite the theorem is trivially true, and if it is infinite and (8) holds then ∂X and Ends(X) have at least two points. By Stallings' Theorem G splits over a finite group, and by Dunwoody's Accessibility Theorem [6] there is a graph of groups decomposition of G over finite groups so that all of the vertex groups are either finite or one-ended. A one-ended vertex group would violate condition (8), though, so G satisfies condition (4).
To show something is not a quasi-tree we will show that it is possible to detour around some bottleneck point, violating condition (7). Formally: Corollary 2.9. A geodesic metric space X is not a quasi-tree if there exists a quasi-geodesic γ : R → X and an increasing sequence (t i ) of positive integers such that γ(−t i ) and γ(t i ) can be connected by a path that does not enter N i (γ(0)).

Geometric Models.
In the torsion free case we build a Bass-Serre complex X for G = A * C B as follows (the HNN case is similar). Let K A be a rose with π 1 (K A ) = A, and similarly let K B be a rose for B. Let K C = S 1 × [0, 1] be an annulus with π 1 (K C ) = C. Build a space K with π 1 (K) = G by gluing one boundary component of K C to K A according to the edge injection C → A, and similarly glue the other boundary component to K B . Let X = K. See Scott-Wall [15] and Mosher-Sageev-Whyte [14] for details.
A vertex space is a connected component in X of the preimage of K A or K B . In our case these are copies of Cayley trees for A and B. An edge strip is a connected component of the preimage of one of the K C , a bi-infinite, width 1 strip. The quotient map that collapses each vertex space to a point and each edge strip to an interval gives a G-equivariant map from X to the Bass-Serre tree of the graph of groups decomposition of G, so we call X the Bass-Serre Complex.
The edge strips glue onto the vertex spaces along conjugates of the image w of the edge inclusion. Thus, the Whitehead graph for w, or for {w 1 , w 2 } in the HNN case, records the intersection pattern of edge strips in a vertex space.
We will refer to paths that remain within a single vertex space as horizontal, and paths that go directly across an edge space as vertical.
In the presence of torsion we can use the same construction to build a Bass-Serre complex, but the vertex and edge spaces may not be so nice. However, in the proof we will only need the fact that G and X are quasi-isometric, not that G acts nicely on X. Thus, we can make a trade: we will build a "nicer" space X quasi-isometric to G, but sacrifice the G action to do so. To do this we will choose finite index normal free subgroups A and B of A and B, respectively. Fix bases for each of these, and replace each A-vertex space in X by a copy of the Cayley tree for A , and similarly for B. Each edge strip of X glues on to an A-vertex space and a B-vertex space along coarsely well defined lines, and we can use quasi-isometry inverses to the inclusion maps A → A and B → B to give lines in the X vertex spaces to attach edge strips to (see Equation 1). The resulting space X is a coarse Bass-Serre complex (see Mosher-Sageev-Whyte [14, Section 2.6]). Choose a basepoint γ(0) in an A-vertex space X α . Define a map γ : |[w]| B A Z → X by γ(|[w]| B A · t) = w t .γ(0), and extend linearly to get a map from R. To satisfy Corollary 2.9 it suffices to take the sequence (t i = |[w]| B A · i). To see this, for each i > 0 we construct a path p i joining γ(−t i ) to γ(t i ) that stays outside N i (γ(0)).
Fix any i > 0. Take the 0-th approximation q i0 to p i to be the subsegment of γ connecting γ(−t i ) to γ(t i ). Of course, this goes through N i (γ(0)).
We will inductively push out the approximations of p i until we leave N i (γ(0)), thereby creating a detour. Depending on X we can push vertically or horizontally.
First, suppose that w is divisible in A. In this case, for any line in X α to which an edge strip attaches, there are at least two edge strips attached. Construct q i1 from q i0 by pushing the segment vertically across one of the edge strips that it lies on the boundary of. That is, replace the horizontal segment q i0 along one boundary of the edge strip by a path that goes vertically across the edge strip, horizontally across the opposite side, and then vertically back.
The vertical segments of q i1 lie outside N i (γ(0)). The horizontal segment may not, but it has at least moved distance one farther away from γ(0) than q i0 . This new horizontal segment lies in a B-vertex space. Now, if w is also divisible in B then there are at least two edge strips that attach to the line we have just arrived on. Thus, we can push the horizontal segment vertically across an edge strip different from the edge strip that we used in the previous step, so that the horizontal segment gets farther from γ(0). Continuing in this way, the vertical segments always stay outside N i (γ(0)), and after i steps the horizontal segment is also outside N i (γ(0)).
If w is indivisible we must also push horizontally. Suppose w is indivisible in A. By Lemma 2.6, Wh B A ( * ){w} has one non-trivial connected component. If w is not a factor then the non-trivial connected component is not an isolated edge, so by Lemma 2.5 Wh B A ( * ){w} has 2-connected components. Note that since X α is isometrically embedded, X α ∩ N i (γ(0)) is just the i-ball N Xα i (γ(0)) in X α in its own natural metric (the one lifted from K A ). The two vertices u and v in N i (0) ∩ γ are adjacent in Wh B A (N Xα i (γ(0))){w}; they are connected by an edge e corresponding to a segment of q i0 . By Lemma 2.7, Wh B A (N Xα i (γ(0))){w} has 2connected components, so there is another path connecting u and v, an edge path e 1 , . . . , e k that does not use the edge e. Each edge e j corresponds to a geodesic segment in X α joining vertices outside of N Xα i (γ(0)). Construct q i0 from q i0 by replacing the e-segment by the segments coming from the alternate path in the generalized Whitehead graph.
Each of the new horizontal segments has endpoints u and v outside of N i (γ(0)). Furthermore, each of these new segments has an edge strip attached along it. Construct q i1 from q i0 by pushing each horizontal segment vertically across an edge strip. As in the previous case, the vertical segments of q i1 stay outside N i (γ(0)), and the horizontal segments move farther from γ(0).
The new horizontal segments lie in B-vertex spaces. We can continue the construction if it is possible to push each of these segments vertically or horizontally without pushing back across an edge strip that was already crossed. Thus, we would like to know that each of these segments is on the boundary of two edge strips or that Wh B B ( * ){w} has 2-connected components. If w is not a factor of B then one of these is true.
Thus, if w is a factor in neither A nor B we can push γ out of any N i (γ(0)), so X is not a quasi-tree, so A * w B is not free. (Not even virtually free.) 3.2. HNN Extension Case. Let G = A * C = A, t | tw 1 t = w 2 , where w 1 and w 2 are words in A. The edge injections are the maps C ∼ = −→ w i . If w 1 and w 2 are conjugate into a common maximal cyclic subgroup then G contains a Baumslag-Solitar subgroup, so it is not hyperbolic, hence not free. Otherwise the vertex spaces are quasi-isometrically embedded and we may repeat the construction from the amalgamated product case.
Take t i large enough so that d(γ(±t i ), γ(0)) ≥ 2i. If there is an initial horizontal push, take the new set of vertices to also lie outside N 2i (γ(0)). A vertical segment from such a vertex may lead closer to γ(0), but stays outside N 2i−1 (γ(0)). Make sure the next round of horizontal pushing gives vertices outside of N 2i−1 (γ(0)), so that the next vertical segments stay outside N 2i−2 (γ(0)), etc. N i (γ(0)) still reaches across at most i − 1 edge strips, so at the i-th stage all vertical and horizontal segments lie outside N i (γ(0)).
If w 1 and w 2 are both divisible then we only need to push vertically, as before, to avoid the bottleneck point, so G is not virtually free.
Otherwise, choose a basis B so that the Whitehead graph for w = {w 1 , w 2 } is minimal. Recall that by definition Wh B ( * ){w} = Wh B ( * ){v} where v = {v 1 , v 2 } such that v 1 and v 2 are indivisible, cyclically reduced with respect to B, and so that there exists an a i ∈ A such that w i ∈ a i v i a i . We may assume a 1 is trivial.
There are two possibilities. Either Wh B ( * ){v} has only one non-trivial connected component, or it has distinct components corresponding to v 1 and v 2 . In the first case the component has more than one edge, so, by Lemma 2.5, Wh B ( * ){v} has 2-connected components.
In the second case, for each i either the component containing v i is 2-connected or it is an isolated edge and v i is basic.
Thus, we can repeat the construction to build a path avoiding the bottleneck point, and G is not virtually free, unless for some i, say i = 2, we have both: • w 2 is indivisible, and • v 2 is basic and gives an isolated edge in Wh B ( * ){v}. Now, the second condition implies there is a splitting A = A * v 2 with w 1 ∈ v 1 ⊂ A . If w 2 is indivisible then w 2 = a 2 v 2 a 2 (after possibly exchanging v 2 and v 2 ), so Thus, G is not free unless, up to A-conjugation, the edge injections map C into independent factors, and one of them is onto.

Factors
To prove the theorem with torsion we will need a characterization of when an infinite subgroup is a factor. Recall this means that the subgroup appears as a vertex group in a graph of groups decomposition with finite edge groups. We make use of some results about the boundaries of relatively hyperbolic groups due to Bowditch [2] and Groves and Manning [7].
A collection of subgroups H = {H 1 , . . . , H k } is an almost malnormal collection if |gH i g ∩ H j | = ∞ implies i = j and g ∈ H i .
If G is a finitely generated hyperbolic group and H is an almost malnormal collection of infinite, finitely generated, quasi-convex subgroups, then G is hyperbolic relative to H [2, Theorem 7.11]. There is a relatively hyperbolic boundary of (G, H) that we will denote D H . This can be seen as the boundary of the "cusped space" obtained from G by hanging a horoball off each conjugate of each of the H i 's [7]. The effect of this is to collapse the embedded image of each boundary of a conjugate of an H i to a point. Thus, D H is the decomposition space that has one point for each distinct conjugate of each H i and one point for each boundary point of G that is not a boundary point of some conjugate of an H i .
We say that G splits relative to H if there is a splitting of G so that each H i is conjugate into a vertex group of the splitting. It is easy to see that corresponding to each edge in the Bass-Serre tree of a splitting of G over a finite group relative to  Proof. The "only if" direction is easy. For the converse, suppose H is not a proper factor of G. We will show H = G.
H is infinite, so there is a unique minimal factor containing it. A factor of a factor is a factor, since finite groups act elliptically on any tree, so we may assume H is not contained in a proper factor of G. This means that G does not split relative to H, so D H is connected. Since the component containing the image of ∂H is a single point, all of D H is a single point. This means the inclusion of H into G induces a homeomorphism between ∂H and ∂G. Since H is finitely generated this implies that H is a finite index subgroup of G. However, H is almost malnormal, so the index must be one.  Proof. The "only if" direction is easy. For the converse, for each i letĤ i be the smallest factor containing H i . The image of ∂Ĥ i is a connected component of D H . The hypothesis then implies that {Ĥ 1 ,Ĥ 2 } is an almost malnormal collection whose decomposition space is not connected. Pass to a maximal graph of groups splitting of G over finite groups relative to {Ĥ 1 ,Ĥ 2 }. The hypothesis implies that H 1 andĤ 2 , hence H 1 and H 2 , are conjugate into different vertex groups of this splitting.

Virtually Cyclic Factors of Virtually Free Groups.
In this section let H be an almost malnormal, virtually cyclic subgroup of a finitely generated virtually free group G, and let F be a finite index normal free subgroup of G. We relate connectivity of D H to connectivity of Whitehead graphs.
Choose representatives g i so that G = F g i . The map ι : G → F : f g i → f is a quasi-isometry inverse to the inclusion ι : F → G. Let w = F ∩ H. This is a maximal cyclic subgroup of F since H is almost malnormal. Let d i be double coset representatives of F \G/ w . Let w = {d i wd i }. For every g ∈ G there exist f ∈ F , g i , d j , and f ∈ F such that g = f g i ∈ f d j w . Thus, ι coarsely takes each G-conjugate of H to an F -conjugate of some d j wd j : (The second equivalence is coarsely true.) It follows that D H is homeomorphic to the decomposition space of the boundary of F obtained from the almost malnormal collection { d i wd i }, which we shall denote by D w . Thus, to decide if D H is totally disconnected we can lift the problem to F and consider D w .
Remark. We took F to be normal so that w would have a nice form, but lifting to any finite index subgroup gives a homeomorphism of decomposition spaces.
Lemma 4.5. Let w be a multiword in a free group whose elements generate distinct conjugacy classes of maximal cyclic subgroups. The following are equivalent: (1) w is basic.
(2) Some minimal Whitehead graph for w consists of isolated edges.
(3) Every minimal Whitehead graph for w consists of isolated edges.
If w is basic we may take a graph of groups decomposition of F with finite edge groups whose cyclic vertex groups are generated by conjugates of the words in w. The same argument as Corollary 4.2 shows that D w is totally disconnected. Thus, (1) implies (4).
Suppose (3) is false, so that some minimal Whitehead graph has a component containing more than one edge. By passing to a free factor we may assume that the Whitehead graph is connected. Since it has 2-connected components, this is not a rank one factor. It follows (see, for example, [4,Theorem 4.1]) that the decomposition space of the factor is connected and not a single point, so D w is not totally disconnected. Thus, (4) implies (3). (1) H is a factor of G.
(3) Every minimal Whitehead graph of w consists of isolated edges.
(4) Some minimal Whitehead graph of w contains an isolated edge. The alternative is that every minimal Whitehead graph of w has 2-connected components.
Proof. The alternative follows from Lemma 2.5.
Suppose some minimal Whitehead graph for w contains an isolated edge. Such an isolated edge would mean that for some i the point (d i wd i ) ∞ is an isolated point in D w . Since Aut(F ) acts transitively on w and by homeomorphisms on D w , this would imply that D w is totally disconnected. By Lemma 4.5, this is equivalent to w being basic and also to every minimal Whitehead graph consisting entirely of isolated edges. Furthermore, D H and D w are homeomorphic, and Corollary 4.2 says that H is a factor if and only if D H is totally disconnected. Proof. Let G = r, s | r 3 = s 2 = 1 . There is a rank 2 normal free subgroup F = srsr 2 , sr 2 sr , and G/F = [sr] = Z/6Z. The action of sr on the abelianization of F has orbits of size 3 on lines through the origin. Thus, the words in the lift of any virtually cyclic group H to F are not contained in less than three distinct conjugacy classes of maximal cyclic subgroups. A basic multiword in F 2 has words in at most two conjugacy classes of maximal cyclic subgroup, so, by the previous lemma, H is not a factor.

Proof of Theorem 1.2
Let G = A * C B be an amalgamated product of virtually free groups over a virtually cyclic group.
Comm A (C) = {a ∈ A | aCa ∩ C is finite index in both C and aCa} is the commensurator of C in A. A theorem of Kapovich and Short [8] says that an infinite, quasi-convex subgroup of a hyperbolic group has finite index in its commensurator. Since C is virtually cyclic, so is Comm A (C), and Comm A (C) = {a ∈ A | |aCa ∩ C| = ∞}. Thus, Comm A (C) is the smallest almost malnormal subgroup of A containing C.
Choose a finite index normal free subgroup A of A. Let w = A ∩ Comm A (C), and let w A = {d i wd i } be a lift of Comm A (C) to A . Choose a basis for A with respect to which w A is Whitehead minimal. After making similar choices for B, let X be the coarse Bass-Serre complex for G described in Section 2.3.
The number of edge strips attaching to a given conjugate of a d i wd i in A is equal to the index of C in Comm A (C).
X is a tree of trees glued together along bi-infinite, width 1 edge strips just as in the torsion free case, and we repeat the previous argument to show that X is not a quasi-tree if, for each line in A and B to which an edge strip attaches, either • there is a second edge strip attached to that same line, or • we can follow different edge strips to detour around an arbitrarily large ball centered on that line. Now suppose C is not a factor of A. It could be that C is not almost malnormal in A, in which case the first condition above is satisfied for A. If C is almost malnormal and not a factor of A then by Lemma 4.6 every minimal Whitehead graph for a lift of C = Comm A (C) to A has 2-connected components. This gives us the second condition.
Thus, if C is a factor of neither A nor B then X is not a quasi-tree, so A * C B is not virtually free.
The G = A * C case follows by making similar adjustments to the torsion free HNN case. The interesting case is when the images C 1 and C 2 of C in A form an almost malnormal collection. Proposition 4.3 shows that if C 1 and C 2 are not, up to conjugation, contained in independent factors, then the images of ∂C 1 and some ∂gC 2 g are contained in a common component of D {C1,C2} . Since {C 1 , C 2 } is an almost malnormal collection, this component is not a singleton, so D {C1,C2} is not totally disconnected. It follows that a minimal Whitehead graph for a lift of {C 1 , C 2 } to a finite index normal subgroup of A will have 2-connected components, so G is not virtually free.