---
abstract: |
    Let $F_n$ be a free group of rank $n$. In this paper we discuss three algorithmic problems related to automorphisms of $F_2$.

    A word $u$ of $F_n$ is called positive if $u$ does not have negative exponents. A word $u$ in $F_n$ is called potentially positive if $\phi(u)$ is positive for some automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$. We prove that there is an algorithm to decide whether or not a given word in $F_2$ is potentially positive, which gives an affirmative solution to problem F34a in \[1\] for the case of $F_2$.

    Two elements $u$ and $v$ in $F_n$ are said to be boundedly translation equivalent if the ratio of the cyclic lengths of $\phi(u)$ and $\phi(v)$ is bounded away from $0$ and from $\infty$ for every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$. We provide an algorithm to determine whether or not two given elements of $F_2$ are boundedly translation equivalent, thus answering question F38c in the online version of \[1\] for the case of $F_2$.

    We further prove that there exists an algorithm to decide whether or not a given finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$ is the fixed point group of some automorphism of $F_2$, which settles problem F1b in \[1\] in the affirmative for the case of $F_2$.
address: |
    Department of Mathematics\
    Pusan National University\
    San-30 Jangjeon-Dong, Geumjung-Gu, Pusan, 609-735, Korea
author:
- Donghi Lee
title: On several problems about automorphisms of the free group of rank two
---

Introduction
============

Let $F_n$ be the free group of rank $n \ge 2$ with basis $\Sigma$. In particular, if $n=2$, we let $\Sigma=\{a, b\}$, namely, $F_2$ is the free group with basis $\{a, b\}$. A word $v$ in $F_n$ is called [*cyclically reduced*]{} if all its cyclic permutations are reduced. A [*cyclic word*]{} is defined to be the set of all cyclic permutations of a cyclically reduced word. By $[v]$ we denote the cyclic word associated with a word $v$. Also by $\|v\|$ we mean the length of the cyclic word $[v]$ associated with $v$, that is, the number of cyclic permutations of a cyclically reduced word which is conjugate to $v$. The length $\|v\|$ is called the [*cyclic length*]{} of  $v$. For two automorphisms $\phi$ and $\psi$ of $F_n$, by writing $\phi \equiv
\psi$ we mean the equality of $\phi$ and $\psi$ over all cyclic words in $F_n$, that is, $\phi(w)=\psi(w)$ for every cyclic word $w$ in $F_n$.

Recall that a [*Whitehead automorphism*]{} $\a$ of $F_n$ is defined to be an automorphism of one of the following two types (cf. [@lee]):

-   $\a$ permutes elements in $\Sigma^{\pm 1}$.

-   $\a$ is defined by a letter $x \in \Sigma^{\pm 1}$ and a set $S \subset \Sigma^{\pm 1} \setminus \{x, x^{-1}\}$ in such a way that if $c \in \Sigma^{\pm 1}$ then (a) $\a(c)=cx$ provided $c
    \in S$ and $c^{-1} \notin {S}$; (b) $\a(c)=x^{-1}cx$ provided both $c,\, c^{-1} \in S$; (c) $\a(c)=c$ provided both $c,\, c^{-1}
    \notin S$.

If $\a$ is of type (W2), we write $\a=(S, x)$. Note that in the expression of $\a=(S, x)$ it is conventional to include the defining letter $x$ in the defining set $S$, but for the sake of brevity of notation we will omit $a$ from $S$ as defined above.

Throughout the present paper, we let $$\s=(\{a\}, b), \quad \t=(\{b\}, a)$$ be Whitehead automorphisms of type (W2) of $F_2$. Recently the author  [@lee] proved that every automorphism of $F_2$ can represented in one of two particular types over all cyclic words of $F_2$ as follows:

\[lem:2.3\] (\[Lemma 2.3, 6\]) For every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$, $\phi$ can be represented as $\phi \equiv \b \phi'$, where $\b$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1) and $\phi'$ is a chain of one of the forms $$\begin{aligned}
(C1) \ & \phi' \equiv \t^{m_k}\s^{l_k} \cdots \t^{m_1}\s^{l_1} \\
(C2) \ & \phi' \equiv \t^{-m_k}\s^{-l_k} \cdots \t^{-m_1}\s^{-l_1}
\end{aligned}$$ with $k \in \mathbb {N}$ and both $l_i, \, m_i \ge 0$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$.

With the notation of Lemma  \[lem:2.3\], we define the [*length of an automorphism*]{} $\phi$ of $F_2$ as $\sum_{i=1}^k
(m_i+l_i)$, which is denoted by $|\phi|$. Then obviously $|\phi|=|\phi'|$.

In the present paper, with the help of Lemma  \[lem:2.3\], we resolve three algorithmic problems related to automorphisms of $F_2$. Indeed, the description of automorphisms $\phi$ of $F_2$ in the statement of Lemma  \[lem:2.3\] provides us with a very useful computational tool that facilitates inductive arguments on $|\phi|$ in the proofs of the problems.

The first problem we deal with is about potential positivity of elements in a free group the notion of which was first introduced by Khan  [@khan].

A word $u$ of $F_n$ is called positive if $u$ does not have negative exponents. A word $u$ in $F_n$ is called potentially positive if $\phi(u)$ is positive for some automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$.

It was shown by Khan  [@khan] and independently by Meakin-Weil  [@meakin] that the Hanna Neumann conjecture is satisfied if one of the subgroups is generated by positive elements.

In Section 2, we shall describe an algorithm to decide whether or not a given word in $F_2$ is potentially positive, which gives an affirmative solution to problem F34a in \[1\] for the case of $F_2$.

The second problem we discuss here is related to the notion of bounded translation equivalence which is one of generalizations of the notion of translation equivalence, due to Kapovich-Levitt-Schupp-Shpilrain  [@kapovich].

Two elements $u$ and $v$ in $F_n$ are called translation equivalent in $F_n$ if $\|\phi(u)\|=\|\phi(v)\|$ for every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$.

Several different sources of translation equivalence in free groups were provided by Kapovich-Levitt-Schupp-Shpilrain  [@kapovich] and the author  [@lee2]. In another paper of the author  [@lee], it is proved that there exists an algorithm to decide whether or not two given elements $u$ and $v$ of $F_2$ are translation equivalent. In contrast with the notion of translation equivalence, bounded translation equivalence is defined as follows:

Two elements $u$ and $v$ in $F_n$ are said to be boundedly translation equivalent in $F_n$ if there is $C>0$ such that $${1 \over C} \le {\|\phi(u)\| \over \|\phi(v)\|} \le C$$ for every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$.

Clearly every pair of translation equivalent elements in $F_n$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_n$, but not vice versa. As one of specific examples of volume equivalence, we mention that two elements $a$ and $a[a, b]$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$. Indeed, if $u=a$ and $v=a[a, b]$, then we have, in view of Lemma  \[lem:2.3\], that $${1 \over 5} \le {\|\phi(u)\| \over \|\phi(v)\|} \le 1$$ for every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$.

In Section 3, developing further the technique used in  [@lee], we shall demonstrate that there exists an algorithm to determine whether or not two given elements of $F_2$ are boundedly translation equivalent, thus affirmatively answering question F38c in the online version of \[1\] for the case of $F_2$.

Our last problem is concerned with the notion of fixed point groups of automorphisms of free groups.

A subgroup $H$ of $F_n$ is called the fixed point group of an automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$ if $H$ is precisely the set of the elements of $F_n$ which are fixed by $\phi$.

Due to Bestvina-Handel  [@bestvina], a subgroup of rank bigger than $n$ cannot possibly be the fixed point group of an automorphism of $F_n$. Recently Martino-Ventura  [@ventura] provided an explicit description for the fixed point groups of automorphisms of $F_n$, generalizing the maximal rank case studied by Collins-Turner  [@turner]. However, this description is not a complete characterization of all fixed point groups of automorphisms of $F_n$. On the other hand, Maslakova  [@maslakova] proved that, given an automorphism $\phi$ of $F_n$, it is possible to effectively find a finite set of generators of the fixed point group of $\phi$.

In Section 4, we shall present an algorithm to decide whether or not a given finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$ is the fixed point group of some automorphism of $F_2$, which settles problem F1b in  [@baumslag] in the affirmative for the case of $F_2$.

Potential positivity in $F_2$
=============================

Recall that $F_2$ denotes the free group with basis $\Sigma=\{a,b\}$, and that $\s$ and $\t$ denote Whitehead automorphisms $$\s=(\{a\}, b), \quad \t=(\{b\}, a)$$ of $F_2$ of type (W2). We also recall from  [@lee] the definition of trivial or nontrivial cancellation. For a cyclic word $w$ in $F_2$ and a Whitehead automorphism, say $\s$, of $F_2$, a subword of the form $ab^ra^{-1}$ ($r \neq 0$), if any, in $w$ is invariant in passing from $w$ to $\s(w)$, although there occurs cancellation in $\s(ab^ra^{-1})$ (note that $\s(ab^ra^{-1})=ab \cdot b^r \cdot
b^{-1}a^{-1}=ab^ra^{-1}$). Such cancellation is called [*trivial cancellation*]{}. And cancellation which is not trivial cancellation is called [*proper cancellation*]{}. For example, a subword $ab^{-r}a$ ($r \ge 1$), if any, in $w$ is transformed to $ab^{-r+1}ab$ by applying $\s$, and thus the cancellation occurring in $\s(ab^{-r}a)$ is proper cancellation.

The following lemma from  [@lee] will play a fundamental role throughout the present paper.

\[lem:2.4\] (Lemma 2.4 in [@lee]) Let $u$ be a cyclic word in $F_2$, and let $\psi$ be a chain of type (C1) (or (C2)). If $\psi$ contains at least $\|u\|$ factors of $\s$ (or $\s^{-1}$), then there cannot occur proper cancellation in passing from $\psi(u)$ to $\s\psi(u)$ (or $\psi(u)$ to $\s^{-1}\psi(u)$). Also if $\psi$ contains at least $\|u\|$ factors of $\t$ (or $\t^{-1}$), then there cannot occur proper cancellation in passing from $\psi(u)$ to $\t\psi(u)$ (or $\psi(u)$ to $\t^{-1}\psi(u)$).

The main result of this section is

\[pro:3.1\] Let $u$ be an element in $F_2$, and let $\Omega$ be the set of all chains of type (C1) or (C2) of length less than or equal to $2\|u\|+3$. Suppose that the cyclic word $[\phi(u)]$ is positive for some automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$. Then there exists $\psi \in \Omega$ and a Whitehead automorphism $\b$ of $F_2$ of type (W1) such that the cyclic word $[\b \psi(u)]$ is positive (which is obviously equivalent to saying that there exists $c \in
F_2$ such that $\pi_c \b \psi(u)$ is positive, where $\pi_c$ is the inner automorphism of $F_2$ induced by $c$).

Once this theorem is proved, an algorithm to decide whether or not a given word in $F_2$ is potentially positive is naturally derived as follows.

Let $u$ be an element in $F_2$, and let $\Omega$ be defined as in the statement of Theorem  \[pro:3.1\]. Clearly $\Omega$ is a finite set. Check if there is $\psi \in \Omega$ and a Whitehead automorphism $\b$ of $F_2$ of type (W1) for which the cyclic word $[\b \psi(u)]$ is positive. If so, conclude that $u$ is potentially positive; otherwise conclude that $u$ is not potentially positive.

[*Proof of Theorem  \[pro:3.1\].*]{} By Lemma  \[lem:2.3\], $\phi$ can be expressed as $$\phi \equiv \b
\phi',$$ where $\b$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1) and $\phi'$ is a chain of type (C1) or (C2). By the hypothesis of the theorem,

$$\label{equ:3.1}
\text{\rm $[\phi(u)]=[\b \phi' (u)]$ is positive.}$$

If $|\phi'| \le 2\|u\|+3$, then there is nothing to prove. So suppose that $|\phi'|> 2\|u\|+3$. We proceed with the proof by induction on $|\phi'|$. Assume that $\phi'$ is a chain of type (C1) which ends in $\t$ (the other cases are analogous). Write $$\phi'=\t \phi_1,$$ where $\phi_1$ is a chain of type (C1). Since $|\phi_1| \ge
2\|u\|+3$, $\phi_1$ must contain at least $\|u\|+2$ factors of $\s$ or $\t$. We consider two cases separately.

[**Case 1.**]{} [*$\s$ occurs at least $\|u\|+2$ times in $\phi_1$.*]{}

Write $$\phi_1=\t^{m_t} \s^{\ell_t} \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1},$$ where all $m_i, \ell_i > 0$ but $\ell_1$ and $m_t$ may be zero.

[**Case 1.1.**]{} [*$m_t \ge 1$.*]{}

In this case, put $$\phi_1=\t^{m_t} \phi_2,$$ where $\phi_2$ is a chain of type (C1). By Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], no proper cancellation can occur in passing from $[\s^{\ell_t-1}
\cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1}(u)]$ to $[\phi_2(u)]$, and hence the cyclic word $[\phi_2(u)]$ does not contain a subword of the form $a^2$ or $a^{-2}$. From this fact and the assumption $m_t \ge 1$, we can observe that no proper cancellation occurs in passing from $[\phi_1(u)]$ to $[\t \phi_1(u)]=[\phi'(u)]$. This implies from (\[equ:3.1\]) that the cyclic word $[\b \phi_1(u)]$ is positive, and thus induction completes the case.

[**Case 1.2.**]{} [*$m_t=0$.*]{}

In this case, we may put $$\phi_1=\s \phi_3,$$ where $\phi_3$ is a chain of type (C1). Again by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], no proper cancellation can occur in passing from $[\phi_3(u)]$ to $[\s \phi_3(u)]=[\phi_1(u)]$. Additionally, the proof of Theorem  1.2 of  [@lee] shows that proper cancellation occurs in passing from $[\phi_3(u)]$ to $[\t
\phi_3(u)]$ exactly in the same place where proper cancellation occurs in passing from $[\phi_1(u)]$ to $[\t
\phi_1(u)]=[\phi'(u)]$. Therefore, by (\[equ:3.1\]), the cyclic word $[\b \t \phi_3 (u)]$ is positive. Since $|\t
\phi_3|=|\phi'|-1$, we are done by induction.

[**Case 2.**]{} [*$\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+2$ times in $\phi_1$.*]{}

In this case, also by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], no proper cancellation can occur in passing from $[\phi_1(u)]$ to $[\t
\phi_1(u)]=[\phi'(u)]$. It then follows from (\[equ:3.1\]) that the cyclic word $[\b \phi_1(u)]$ is positive; hence the required result follows by induction.

Bounded translation equivalence in $F_2$
========================================

We begin this section by fixing notation. Following  [@kapovich], if $w$ is a cyclic word in $F_2$ and $x, y \in
\{a, b\}^{\pm 1}$, we use $n(w; x, y)$ to denote the total number of occurrences of the subwords $xy$ and $y^{-1}x^{-1}$ in $w$. Then clearly $n(w; x, y)=n(w; y^{-1}, x^{-1})$. Similarly we denote by $n(w;x)$ the total number of occurrences of $x$ and $x^{-1}$ in $w$. Again clearly $n(w;x)=n(w; x^{-1})$.

In this section, we shall prove that there exists an algorithm to determine bounded translation equivalence in $F_2$. Let $u \in
F_2$. We first establish four preliminary lemmas which demonstrate the difference between $\|\s \psi(u)\|$ or $\|\t \psi(u)\|$ and $\|\psi(u)\|$, and which describe the situation when this difference becomes zero, in the case where $\psi$ is a chain of type (C1) that contains a number of factors of $\s$. We remark that similar statements to the lemmas also hold if $\s$ and $\t$ are interchanged with each other, or (C1) is replaced by (C2) and $\s$ and $\t$ are replaced by $\s^{-1}$ and $\t^{-1}$, respectively.

\[lem:4.1\] Let $u \in F_2$. Suppose that $\psi$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|+2$ factors of $\s$. We may write $\psi=\t^m \s \psi_1$, where $m \ge 0$ and $\psi_1$ is a chain of type (C1). Then $$\begin{aligned}
(i) \ \|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=\|\s \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m
\psi_1(u)\|+m(\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|); \\
(ii) \|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=\|\t \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m
\psi_1(u)\|+\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|.
\end{aligned}$$

By the proof of Case  1 of Theorem  1.2 in  [@lee], we see that

$$\label{equ:4.1}
n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1})=n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1})$$

for every $i \ge 0$, because $\psi_1$ contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$. In particular, $$\label{equ:4.1.5}
n([\psi(u)]; b, a^{-1})=n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1}),$$ for $\psi=\t^m \s \psi_1$. Since only $a$ or $a^{-1}$ can possibly cancel or newly occur in the process of applying $\t$, the number of $b$ and $b^{-1}$ remains unchanged if $\t$ is applied. Thus $$\label{equ:4.2}
\begin{aligned}
n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b)&=n([\s \psi_1(u)]; b); \\
n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b)&=n([\psi_1(u)]; b)
\end{aligned}$$ for every $i \ge 0$. Also since only $b$ or $b^{-1}$ can possibly cancel or newly occur in the process of applying $\s$, we get $$n([\s \psi_1(u)]; b)=n([\psi_1(u)]; b)+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ By (\[equ:4.2\]), this equality can be rewritten as $$\label{equ:4.3}
n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b)=n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b)+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|$$ for every $i \ge 0$. In particular, $$\label{equ:4.3.5}
n([\psi(u)]; b)=n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; b)+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|,$$ for $\psi=\t^m \s \psi_1$.

Equality (\[equ:4.3\]) together with (\[equ:4.1\]) yields that $$\begin{gathered}
 \label{equ:4.4}
n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b)-n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1}) \\
= n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b)-n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1})+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|\end{gathered}$$ for every $i \ge 0$. Here, since $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t^{i+1} \s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^i \s \psi_1(u)\|&=n([\t^i \s
\psi_1(u)];b)-2n([\t^i \s \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1}); \\
\|\t^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^i \psi_1(u)\|&=n([\t^i \psi_1(u)];
b)-2n([\t^i \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ equality (\[equ:4.4\]) can be rephrased as $$\|\t^{i+1} \s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^i \s \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^{i+1}
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^i \psi_1(u)\|+\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|$$ for every $i \ge 0$. By summing up both sides of these equalities changing $i$ from $0$ to $m-1$, we have $$\|\t^m \s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\s \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^m
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|+m(\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|),$$ so that $$\label{equ:4.7}
\|\t^m \s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m \psi_1(u)\|=(m+1)(\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|).$$ Since $\psi=\t^m \s \psi_1$, equality (\[equ:4.7\]) can be rephrased as $$\label{equ:4.8}
\|\psi(u)\|-\|\t^m \psi_1(u)\|=(m+1)(\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|).$$

Clearly $$\begin{aligned}
n([\psi(u)]; a)&=\|\psi(u)\|-n([\psi(u)]; b); \\
n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; a)&=\|\t^m \psi_1(u)\|-n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; b).
\end{aligned}$$ These equalities together with (\[equ:4.3.5\]) and (\[equ:4.8\]) yield that $$\label{equ:4.10}
n([\psi(u)]; a)=n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; a)+m(\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|).$$ It then follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=n([
\psi(u)]; a)-2n([\psi(u)]; a, b^{-1}); \\
\|\s \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m \psi_1(u)\|&=n([\t^m \psi_1(u)];
a)-2n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; a, b^{-1})
\end{aligned}$$ together with (\[equ:4.1.5\]) and (\[equ:4.10\]) that $$\|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|=\|\s \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m
\psi_1(u)\|+m(\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|),$$ thus proving the first assertion of the lemma.

On the other hand, we deduce from $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=n([
\psi(u)]; b)-2n([\psi(u)]; b, a^{-1}); \\
\|\t \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m \psi_1(u)\|&=n([\t^m \psi_1(u)];
b)-2n([\t^m \psi_1(u)]; b, a^{-1})
\end{aligned}$$ together with (\[equ:4.1.5\]) and (\[equ:4.3.5\]) that $$\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|=\|\t \t^m \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^m
\psi_1(u)\|+\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|,$$ which proves the second assertion of the lemma.

\[lem:4.3\] Let $u \in F_2$. Suppose that $\psi$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|$ factors of $\s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&(i) \ \|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\| \ge 0; \\
&(ii) \ \|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\| \ge 0.
\end{aligned}$$

Clearly $$\label{equ:4.11}
\begin{split}
\|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=n([\psi(u)];a)-2n([\psi(u); a,b^{-1})
\\
&=n([\psi(u)];a, a)+n([\psi(u)];a, b)-n([\psi(u)];a, b^{-1}).
\end{split}$$ Since $\psi$ contains at least $\|u\|$ factors of $\s$, by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], there cannot occur proper cancellation in passing from $[\psi(u)]$ to $[\s\psi(u)]$. Hence every subword of $[\psi(u)]$ of the form $ab^{-1}$ or $ba^{-1}$ is necessarily part of a subword of the form $ab^{-r}a^{-1}$ or $ab^ra^{-1}$ ($r >0$), respectively. This implies that $$n([\psi(u)];a, b) \ge n([\psi(u)];a, b^{-1}),$$ so that, from (\[equ:4.11\]), $$\|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\| \ge n([\psi(u)];a, a) \ge 0,$$ thus proving (i).

On the other hand, clearly $$\label{equ:4.12}
\begin{split}
\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|&=n([\psi(u)];b)-2n([\psi(u); b,a^{-1})
\\
&=n([\psi(u)];b, b)+n([\psi(u)];b, a)-n([\psi(u)];b, a^{-1}).
\end{split}$$ As above, every subword of $[\psi(u)]$ of the form $ab^{-1}$ or $ba^{-1}$ is necessarily part of a subword of the form $ab^{-r}a^{-1}$ or $ab^ra^{-1}$ ($r >0$), respectively. Observe that a subword of $[\psi(u)]$ of the form $ab^{\pm r}a^{-1}$ is actually part of either a subword of the form $ba^sb^{\pm
r}a^{-1}$ or a subword of the form $a^{-1}b^{-t}a^sb^{\pm
r}a^{-1}$ ($s, t >0$). This implies that $$\label{equ:4.12.5}
n([\psi(u)];b, a) \ge n([\psi(u)];b, a^{-1}),$$ so that, from (\[equ:4.12\]), $$\label{equ:4.13}
\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\| \ge n([\psi(u)];b, b) \ge 0,$$ thus proving (ii).

\[lem:4.3.3\] Let $u \in F_2$. Suppose that $\psi$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$. Then

\(i) if $\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$, then $\|\s^{i+1}
\psi(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi(u)\|$ for every $i \ge 0$;

\(ii) if $\|\s^{j+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^j \psi(u)\|$ for some $j \ge
0$, then $\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$.

For (i), assume that $\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$. We shall prove $\|\s^{i+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi(u)\|$ by induction on $i \ge 0$. The case where $i=0$ is clear. So let $i \ge 1$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i) with $m=0$, we have $$\|\s^{i+1} \psi(u)\|-\|\s^i \psi(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi(u)\|-\|\s^{i-1}
\psi(u)\|.$$ It follows from the induction hypothesis that $$\|\s^{i+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi(u)\|,$$ so proving (i).

For (ii), assume that $\|\s^{j+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^j \psi(u)\|$ for some $j \ge 0$. We use induction on $j \ge 0$. If $j=0$, then there is nothing to prove. So let $j \ge 1$. It follows from Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i) with $m=0$ that $$0=\|\s^{j+1} \psi(u)\|-\|\s^j \psi(u)\|=\|\s^j
\psi(u)\|-\|\s^{j-1} \psi(u)\|,$$ so that $$\|\s^j \psi(u)\|=\|\s^{j-1} \psi(u)\|.$$ Then by the induction hypothesis, we get the required result.

\[lem:4.3.5\] Let $u \in F_2$, and let $\psi=\s \psi_1$, where $\psi_1$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$. Suppose that $\|\t \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$. Then $\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi_1(u)\|$ for every $i \ge 0$.

By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) with $m=0$, we have $$0=\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|=\|\t \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ Here, by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (ii), $\|\t
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$. Also by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (i), $\|\s \psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$. Hence we must have $$\|\t \psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\| \ \text{\rm and} \ \|\s
\psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ The second equality $\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\|$ yields from Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (i) that $$\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^i \psi_1(u)\|$$ for every $i \ge 0$, thus proving the assertion.

For the proof of the main result of the present section, we need the following two technical corollaries of Lemmas  \[lem:4.1\]–\[lem:4.3.5\]. We remark that similar statements to the corollaries also hold if $\s$ and $\t$ are interchanged with each other, or (C1) is replaced by (C2) and $\s$ and $\t$ are replaced by $\s^{-1}$ and $\t^{-1}$, respectively.

\[cor:4.4.5\] Let $u, v \in F_2$ with $\|u\| \ge \|v\|$, and let $\psi$ be a chain of type (C1) with $|\psi| \ge 2\|u\|+3$. Put $k=\|u\|+1$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ have the property that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \psi'(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\s^{k+1} \psi'(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi'(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \psi'(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \
\|\t^{k+1} \psi'(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi'(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every chain $\psi'$ of type (C1) with $|\psi'| < |\psi|$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(i) \ \|\s^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\s^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|; \\
&(ii) \ \|\t^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$

Suppose that $\psi$ ends in $\t$ (the case where $\psi$ ends in $\s$ is analogous). Since $|\psi| \ge 2\|u\|+3$, either $\s$ or $\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+2$ times in $\psi$. We consider two cases separately.

$\s$ occurs at least $\|u\|+2$ times in $\psi$.

First we shall prove (i). Suppose that $\|\s^{k+1}
\psi(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi(u)\|$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (ii), we have $$\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|.$$ Write $$\psi=\t^{\ell} \s \psi_1,$$ where $\ell \ge 1$ and $\psi_1$ is a chain of type (C1). Clearly $\psi_1$ contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i), we have $$0=\|\s \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|=\|\s \t^{\ell}
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|+{\ell}(\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|).$$ Here, since $\|\s \t^{\ell}
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$ and $\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$ by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (i), the only possibility is that $$\|\s \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{\rm and} \ \|\s
\psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ These equalities together with Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (i) yield that $$\|\s^{k+1} \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\| \
\text{\rm and} \ \|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\|.$$ Since $|\t^{\ell} \psi_1|<|\psi|$ and $|\psi_1|<|\psi|$, by the hypothesis of the corollary, we get $$\|\s^{k+1} \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\| \
\text{and} \  \|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|.$$ Again by Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (ii), we have $$\|\s \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\| \ \text{and} \
\|\s \psi_1(v)\|=\|\psi_1(v)\|.$$ Therefore, by Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i), $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \psi(v)\|-\|\psi(v)\|&=\|\s \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|-\|\t^{\ell}
\psi_1(v)\|+{\ell}(\|\s \psi_1(v)\|-\|\psi_1(v)\|)\\
&=0,
\end{aligned}$$ namely, $\|\s \psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|$. Then the desired equality $\|\s^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|$ follows from Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (i).

Conversely, if $\|\s^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|$, we can deduce, in the same way as above, that $\|\s^{k+1}
\psi(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi(u)\|$.

Next we shall prove (ii). Assume that $\|\t^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\t^k
\psi(u)\|$. Apply Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) to get $$\label{equ:4.13.3}
0=\|\t^{k+1} \psi(u)\|-\|\t^k \psi(u)\|=\|\t^{k+1} \t^{\ell}
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|+\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ Here, since $\|\t^{k+1} \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|-\|\t^k \t^{\ell}
\psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$ by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (ii), and since $\|\s
\psi_1(u)\|-\|\psi_1(u)\| \ge 0$ by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (i), we must have $$\label{equ:4.13.5}
\|\t^{k+1} \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(u)\| \
\text{\rm and} \ \|\s \psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\|.$$ Since $|\t^{\ell} \psi_1|<|\psi|$, by the hypothesis of the corollary, the first equality of (\[equ:4.13.5\]) implies that $$\|\t^{k+1} \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\t^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|.$$ Also, from the second equality of (\[equ:4.13.5\]), arguing as above, we deduce that $$\|\s \psi_1(v)\|=\|\psi_1(v)\|.$$ Therefore, by Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii), $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|-\|\t^k \psi(v)\|&=\|\t^{k+1} \t^{\ell}
\psi_1(v)\|-\|\t^k \t^{\ell} \psi_1(v)\|+\|\s
\psi_1(v)\|-\|\psi_1(v)\| \\
&=0,
\end{aligned}$$ that is, $\|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi(v)\|$, as required.

It is clear that the converse is also true.

$\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+2$ times in $\psi$.

Since $\psi$ is assumed to end in $\t$, we may write $$\psi=\t \psi_2,$$ where $\psi_2$ is a chain of type (C1) that contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\t$.

First we shall prove (i). Suppose that $\|\s^{k+1}
\psi(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi(u)\|$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) with $\s, \t$ interchanged, we have $$0=\|\s^{k+1} \psi(u)\|-\|\s^k \psi(u)\|=\|\s^{k+1}
\psi_2(u)\|-\|\s^k \psi_2(u)\|+\|\t \psi_2(u)\|-\|\psi_2(u)\|.$$ This is a similar situation to (\[equ:4.13.3\]) with $\s, \t$ interchanged. So arguing as in Case  1, we get the desired equality $\|\s^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|$. Clearly the converse also holds.

Next we shall prove (ii). Suppose that $\|\t^{k+1}
\psi(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi(u)\|$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i) with $\s, \t$ interchanged and $m=0$, we have $$0=\|\t^{k+1} \psi(u)\|-\|\t^k \psi(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi(u)\|-\|\t^{k-1}
\psi(u)\|.$$ So $$\|\t^k \psi(u)\|=\|\t^{k-1}
\psi(u)\|.$$ This equality can be rephrased as $$\|\t^{k+1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^k
\psi_2(u)\|,$$ because $\psi=\t \psi_2$. Since $|\psi_2|<|\psi|$, by the hypothesis of the corollary, $$\|\t^{k+1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^k
\psi_2(v)\|,$$ that is, $$\|\t^k \psi(v)\|=\|\t^{k-1}
\psi(v)\|.$$ Thus, by Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i) with $\s, \t$ interchanged and $m=0$, we obtain $$\|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|-\|\t^k
\psi(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi(v)\|-\|\t^{k-1} \psi(v)\|=0,$$ namely, $\|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi(v)\|$, as required. Obviously the converse is also true.

\[cor:4.5\] Let $u, v \in F_2$ with $\|u\| \ge
\|v\|$, and let $\psi$ be a chain of type (C1). Put $k=\|u\|+1$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ have the property that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s^{k+1} \psi'(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \
\|\s^{k+1} \psi'(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi'(v)\|; \\
\|\t^{k+1} \psi'(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \
\|\t^{k+1} \psi'(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi'(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every chain $\psi'$ of type (C1) with $|\psi'| \le |\psi|$. Then we have

\(i) if $\psi$ contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$, then $$\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \ \|\s
\psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|;$$

\(ii) if $\|\t \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$ or $\|\t
\psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|$, and $\psi=\s \psi_1$, where $\psi_1$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$, then $$\|\s \psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\| \ \text{and} \ \|\s
\psi_1(v)\|=\|\psi_1(v)\|;$$

\(iii) if $\psi$ contains at least $\|u\|+2$ factors of $\s$ and ends in $\t$, then $$\|\t \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \ \|\t
\psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|.$$

For (i), let $\psi$ contain at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$, and suppose that $\|\s \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (i), we have $\|\s^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^k
\psi(u)\|$. Then by the hypothesis of the corollary, $\|\s^{k+1}
\psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|$. Finally by Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (ii), we get $\|\s \psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|$. The converse also holds.

For (ii), let $\psi=\s \psi_1$, where $\psi_1$ is a chain of type (C1) containing at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$, and suppose that $\|\t \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$. By Lemma  \[lem:4.3.5\], we have $\|\s \psi_1(u)\|=\|\psi_1(u)\|$. Then, by (i) of the corollary, $\|\s \psi_1(v)\|=\|\psi_1(v)\|$. The converse is proved similarly.

For (iii), let $\psi$ contain at least $\|u\|+2$ factors of $\s$, and let $\psi$ end in $\t$. Assume that $\|\t
\psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$. Write $$\psi=\t^{\ell} \s \psi_2,$$ where $\ell \ge 1$ and $\psi_2$ is a chain of type (C1). By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii), we have $$0=\|\t \psi(u)\|-\|\psi(u)\|=\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2
(u)\|-\|\t^{\ell} \psi_2(u)\|+\|\s \psi_2(u)\|-\|\psi_2(u)\|.$$ Here, since $\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2 (u)\|-\|\t^{\ell} \psi_2(u)\|
\ge 0$ by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (ii) and $\|\s
\psi_2(u)\|-\|\psi_2(u)\| \ge 0$ by Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (i), we must have $$\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2 (u)\|=\|\t^{\ell} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{\rm
and} \ \|\s \psi_2(u)\|=\|\psi_2(u)\|.$$ Since $\|\s \psi_2(u)\|=\|\psi_2(u)\|$, by (i) of the corollary, $$\|\s \psi_2(v)\|=\|\psi_2(v)\|.$$ Also, the following claim shows that $\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2
(v)\|=\|\t^{\ell} \psi_2(v)\|$. Then by Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii), we have $\|\t \psi(v)\|=\|\psi(v)\|$, as required.

$\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2 (v)\|=\|\t^{\ell}
\psi_2(v)\|$.

[*Proof of the Claim.*]{} Since $\|\t \psi(u)\|=\|\psi(u)\|$, in view of (\[equ:4.12\]), (\[equ:4.12.5\]) and (\[equ:4.13\]) in the proof of Lemma  \[lem:4.3\], we must have $$\label{equ:4.14}
\text {\rm $n([\psi(u)];b, a)=n([\psi(u)];b, a^{-1})$ and
$n([\psi(u)];b, b)=0$.}$$ Since the chain $\psi_2$ contains at least $\|u\|+1$ factors of $\s$, by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], no proper cancellation occurs in passing from $[\psi_2(u)]$ to $[\s \psi_2(u)]$. This yields that $$\label{equ:4.14.3}
\text{\rm $a^2$ or $a^{-2}$ cannot occur in $[\s \psi_2(u)]$ as a
subword.}$$ From this, we see that, since $\ell \ge 1$, $$\label{equ:4.14.5}
\text{\rm no proper cancellation can occur in passing from
$[\psi(u)]$ to $[\t \psi(u)]$.}$$ In view of (\[equ:4.14\]), (\[equ:4.14.3\]) and (\[equ:4.14.5\]), the cyclic word $[\psi(u)]$ must have the form $$[\psi(u)]=[a^{\epsilon}ba^{-\epsilon}b^{-1} \cdots
a^{\epsilon}ba^{-\epsilon}b^{-1}],$$ where either $\epsilon=1$ or $\epsilon=-1$. Then, by applying $\s^{-1}\t^{-\ell}$ to $[\psi(u)]$, we deduce that $$[\psi_2(u)]=[\psi(u)]=[a^{\epsilon}ba^{-\epsilon}b^{-1} \cdots
a^{\epsilon}ba^{-\epsilon}b^{-1}].$$ It then follows that $$[\t^i \psi_2(u)]=[\psi_2(u)]$$ for every $i \ge 0$, so that $$\label{equ:4.14.5.5}
\|\t^{i+1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^i \psi_2(u)\|$$ for every $i \ge 0$. In particular, $$\|\t^{k+1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi_2(u)\|.$$

So by the hypothesis of the corollary, $$\label{equ:4.14.6}
\|\t^{k+1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi_2(v)\|.$$ Then in the same way as obtaining (\[equ:4.14\]), we get $$\label{equ:4.14.8}
\text {\rm $n([\t^k \psi_2(v)];b, a)=n([\t^k \psi_2(v)];b,
a^{-1})$ and $n([\t^k \psi_2(v)];b, b)=0$.}$$ Since the chain $\t^k \psi_2$ contains at least $\|v\|+1$ factors of $\t$, by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], no proper cancellation may occur in passing from $[\t^k \psi_2(v)]$ to $[\t^{k+1} \psi_2(v)]$. This together with (\[equ:4.14.8\]) yields that $$[\t^k \psi_2(v)]=[a^{s_1}ba^{t_1}b^{-1} \cdots
a^{s_r}ba^{t_r}b^{-1}],$$ where every $s_j, t_j$ is a nonzero integer. Then, by applying $\t^{-k}$ to $[\t^k \psi_2(v)]$, we deduce that $$[\psi_2(v)]=[a^{s_1}ba^{t_1}b^{-1} \cdots a^{s_r}ba^{t_r}b^{-1}].$$ Thus it follows that $$[\t^i \psi_2(v)]=[\psi_2(v)]$$ for every $i \ge 0$, so that $$\|\t^{i+1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^i \psi_2(v)\|$$ for every $i \ge 0$. In particular, $\|\t \t^{\ell} \psi_2
(v)\|=\|\t^{\ell} \psi_2(v)\|$, as required.

The proof of the corollary is now completed.

For a Whitehead automorphism $\b$ of $F_2$, a chain $\psi$ of Whitehead automorphisms of $F_2$ and an element $w$ in $F_2$, we let $\|\b: \psi: w\|$ denote the maximum of $1$ and $\|\b \psi
(w)\|-\|\psi(w)\|$, that is, $$\|\b: \psi: w\|:=\max\{1,\|\b \psi
(w)\|-\|\psi(w)\|\}.$$

Now we are ready to establish the main result of the present section as follows.

\[thm:4.7\] Let $u, v \in F_2$ with $\|u\| \ge \|v\|$, and let $\Omega$ be the set of all chains of type (C1) or (C2) of length less than or equal to $2\|u\|+5$. Let $\Omega_1$ be the subset of $\Omega$ consisting of all chains of type (C1), and let $\Omega_2$ be the subset of $\Omega$ consisting of all chains of type (C2). Put $k=\|u\|+1$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ have the property that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\psi_1 \in \Omega_1$, and that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\psi_2 \in \Omega_2$. Then $u$ and $v$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$.

More specifically, $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi(u)\| \over \|\phi(v)\|} \le \max \Delta$$ for every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$, where $$\Delta := \{ {\|
\psi(u)\| \over \| \psi(v)\|}, {\| \a: \psi_1: u\| \over \| \a :
\psi_1: v \|}, {\| \a^{-1}: \psi_2: u\| \over \| \a^{-1}: \psi_2:
v\|} \, | \, \psi \in \Omega, \psi_i \in \Omega_i, \a=\s \
\text{or} \ \t \}.$$ (Obviously, $\Delta$ is a finite set consisting of positive real numbers.)

Let $\phi$ be an automorphism of $F_2$. By Lemma  \[lem:2.3\], $\phi$ can be represented as $$\phi \equiv
\b\phi',$$ where $\b$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1) and $\phi'$ is of type either (C1) or (C2). We proceed with the proof of the theorem by induction on $|\phi'|$. Letting $\phi'$ be a chain of type (C1) with $|\phi'|>2\|u\|+5$ (the case for (C2) is similar), assume that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\s^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \psi(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \
\|\t^{k+1} \psi(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ and that $$\min \Delta \le {\|\psi(u)\| \over
\|\psi(v)\|}, {\|\s: \psi: u\| \over \|\s : \psi: v\|}, {\|\t:
\psi: u\| \over \|\t : \psi: v\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ for every chain $\psi$ of type (C1) with $|\psi| < |\phi'|$.

By Corollary  \[cor:4.4.5\], it is easy to get $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \phi'(u)\|=\|\s^k \phi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\s^{k+1} \phi'(v)\|=\|\s^k \phi'(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \phi'(u)\|=\|\t^k \phi'(u)\| \ \text{if and only if} \
\|\t^{k+1} \phi'(v)\|=\|\t^k \phi'(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ In the following Claims A, B and C, we shall prove that $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|}, {\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|},
{\|\t: \phi': u\| \over \|\t : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ which is clearly equivalent to showing that $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\phi(u)\| \over \|\phi(v)\|}, {\|\s: \phi: u\| \over \|\s :
\phi: v\|}, {\|\t: \phi: u\| \over \|\t : \phi: v\|} \le \max
\Delta.$$

Suppose that $\phi'$ ends in $\t$ (the case where $\phi'$ ends in $\s$ is analogous).

[**Claim A.**]{} $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|} \le \max \Delta$$

[*Proof of Claim  A.*]{} Since $\phi'$ ends in $\t$, we may write $$\phi'=\t \phi_1,$$ where $\phi_1$ is a chain of type (C1). Then obviously $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:a.1}
\| \phi'(u)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|+\|\phi_1(u)\|; \\
\| \phi'(v)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|+\|\phi_1(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ If both $\|\t \phi_1(u)\| \neq \|\phi_1(u)\|$ and $\|\t
\phi_1(v)\| \neq \|\phi_1(v)\|$, then equalities (\[equ:a.1\]) can be rephrased as $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:a.2}
\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\t : \phi_1 :u\|+\|\phi_1(u)\|;
\\
\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\t : \phi_1 : v\|+\|\phi_1(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\phi_1(u)\| \over \|\phi_1(v)\|}, {\|\t: \phi_1: u\| \over \|\t
: \phi_1: v\|} \le \max \Delta$$ by the induction hypothesis, we obtain $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|}\le \max \Delta,$$ as required.

So assume that $$\label{equ:a.3}
\|\t \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\| \ \text{\rm or} \ \|\t
\phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|.$$ Clearly the chain $\phi_1$ has length $|\phi_1| = |\phi'|-1 \ge
2\|u\|+5$. Hence either $\s$ or $\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$. We consider two cases accordingly.

[**Case A.1.**]{} $\s$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

Since $\phi_1$ is a chain of type (C1), $\phi_1$ ends in either $\s$ or $\t$.

[**Case A.1.1.**]{} $\phi_1$ ends in $\s$.

Write $$\phi_1=\s \phi_2,$$ where $\phi_2$ is a chain of type (C1). In view of Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (ii), our assumption (\[equ:a.3\]) yields that $$\label{equ:a.4}
\|\s \phi_2(u)\|=\|\phi_2(u)\|\ \text {\rm and} \ \|\s
\phi_2(v)\|=\|\phi_2(v)\|.$$ This together with Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) implies that $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:a.5}
\|\t \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|&=\|\t \phi_2(u)\|-\|\phi_2(u)\|; \\
\|\t \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|&=\|\t \phi_2(v)\|-\|\phi_2(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi_1=\s \phi_2$, we obtain from (\[equ:a.4\]) that $\|\phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_2(u)\|$ and $\|\phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_2(v)\|$, so that, from (\[equ:a.5\]), $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:a.6}
\|\t \phi_1(u)\|&=\|\t \phi_2(u)\|; \\
\|\t \phi_1(v)\|&=\|\t \phi_2(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi'=\t \phi_1$, (\[equ:a.6\]) implies that $${\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|}={\|\t \phi_2(u)\| \over \|\t \phi_2(v)\|},$$ and thus, by the induction hypothesis, $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as desired.

[**Case A.1.2.**]{} $\phi_1$ ends in $\t$.

In view of Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (iii), our assumption (\[equ:a.3\]) yields that both $\|\t \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ and $\|\t \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. We then have from (\[equ:a.1\]) that $${\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|}={\|\phi_1(u)\| \over \|\phi_1(v)\|},$$ so that, by the induction hypothesis, $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as required.

[**Case A.2.**]{} $\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

In view of Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (i) with $\t$ in place of $\s$, we have from (\[equ:a.3\]) both $\|\t
\phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ and $\|\t \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. It then follows from (\[equ:a.1\]) that $${\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|}={\|\phi_1(u)\| \over \|\phi_1(v)\|},$$ so that, by the induction hypothesis, $$\min \Delta \le {\|\phi'(u)\| \over \|\phi'(v)\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as desired.

[**Claim B.**]{} $$\min \Delta \le {\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}\le \max \Delta$$

[*Proof of Claim  B.*]{} As in the proof of Claim A, writing $$\phi'=\t \phi_1,$$ where $\phi_1$ is a chain of type (C1), we consider two cases separately.

[**Case B.1.**]{} $\s$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

In this case, write $$\phi_1=\t^{m-1} \s \phi_2,$$ where $m \ge 1$ and $\phi_2$ is a chain of type (C1). Since $\phi'=\t \phi_1$, $$\phi'=\t^m \s \phi_2.$$ Then by Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i), we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:b.1}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s \t^m \phi_2(u)\|-\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|+m(\|\s \phi_2(u)\|-\|\phi_2(u)\|); \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s \t^m \phi_2(v)\|-\|\t^m \phi_2(v)\|+m(\|\s \phi_2(v)\|-\|\phi_2(v)\|).
\end{aligned}$$ Here, since $\phi_2$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains at least $\|u\|+2$ factors of $\s$, Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (i) yields that $\|\s \t^m \phi_2(u)\|=\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\s \t^m \phi_2(v)\|=\|\t^m \phi_2(v)\|$. So if $\|\s \t^m
\phi_2(u)\|=\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|$ or $\|\s \t^m \phi_2(v)\|=\|\t^m
\phi_2(v)\|$, then we get from (\[equ:b.1\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=m(\|\s \phi_2(u)\|-\|\phi_2(u)\|); \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=m(\|\s \phi_2(v)\|-\|\phi_2(v)\|).
\end{aligned}$$ This gives us $${\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}=
{\|\s: \phi_2: u\| \over \|\s : \phi_2: v\|},$$ and hence the desired inequalities $$\min \Delta \le {\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}
\le \max \Delta$$ follow by the induction hypothesis.

Now let us assume that $$\text{ \rm $\|\s \t^m \phi_2(u)\| \neq \|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|$ and
$\|\s \t^m \phi_2(v)\| \neq \|\t^m \phi_2(v)\|$.}$$ Again by Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (i), we have $\|\s
\phi_2(u)\|=\|\phi_2(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\s
\phi_2(v)\|=\|\phi_2(v)\|$. Hence if $\|\s \phi_2(u)\|=\|
\phi_2(u)\|$ or $\|\s \phi_2(v)\|=\|\phi_2(v)\|$, then, from (\[equ:b.1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s \t^m \phi_2(u)\|-\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s \t^m \phi_2(v)\|-\|\t^m
\phi_2(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ This yields $${\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}=
{\|\s: \t^m \phi_2: u\| \over \|\s : \t^m \phi_2: v\|},$$ which gives us $$\min \Delta \le {\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}
\le \max \Delta$$ by the induction hypothesis.

So let us further assume that $$\text {\rm $\|\s \phi_2(u)\| \neq \|\phi_2(u)\|$ and $\|\s
\phi_2(v)\| \neq \|\phi_2(v)\|$.}$$ It then follows from (\[equ:b.1\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:b.4}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s : \t^m \phi_2: u\|+m\|\s : \phi_2: u\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s : \t^m \phi_2 : v\|+m\|\s :
\phi_2: v\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\min \Delta \le {\|\s: \t^m \phi_2: u\| \over \|\s : \t^m \phi_2: v\|},
{\|\s: \phi_2: u\| \over \|\s : \phi_2: v\|} \le \max \Delta$$ by the induction hypothesis, we have from (\[equ:b.4\]) that $$\min \Delta \le {\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|}
\le \max \Delta,$$ as required.

[**Case B.2.**]{} $\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

In this case, it follows from Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) with $\s, \t$ interchanged and $m=0$ that $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:b.2}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|+\|\t \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|+\|\t
\phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, by Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (i) with $\t$ in place of $\s$, we have $\|\t \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\t
\phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. Hence if $\|\t
\phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ or $\|\t \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$, then, by (\[equ:b.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s : \phi' : u \|&=\|\s : \phi_1 : u \|;\\
\|\s : \phi' : v \|&=\|\s : \phi_1 : v \|.
\end{aligned}$$ Then by the induction hypothesis, $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as desired.

Now assume that $$\text{\rm $\|\t \phi_1(u)\| \neq \|\phi_1(u)\|$ and $\|\t
\phi_1(v)\| \neq \|\phi_1(v)\|$.}$$ We shall show that $\|\s \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\s \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. Let $\|\s
\phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$. If $\phi_1$ ends in $\s$, then, by Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (iii) with $\s, \t$ interchanged, we have $\|\s \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. On the other hand, if $\phi_1$ ends in $\t$, then, by Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (ii) with $\s, \t$ interchanged, we get $\|\t
\phi_2(u)\|=\|\phi_2(u)\|$, where $\phi_1=\t \phi_2$. But then from Lemma  \[lem:4.3.3\]  (i) with $\s$, $\t$ interchanged, it follows that $\|\t^2 \phi_2(u)\| = \|\t \phi_2(u)\|$, namely, $\|\t \phi_1(u)\| = \|\phi_1(u)\|$, which contradicts our assumption $\|\t \phi_1(u)\| \neq \|\phi_1(u)\|$. Therefore, we must have $\|\s \phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$. Conversely, if $\|\s
\phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$, then, for a similar reason, it must follow that $\|\s \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$.

Thus if $\|\s \phi_1(u)\|=\|\phi_1(u)\|$ or $\|\s
\phi_1(v)\|=\|\phi_1(v)\|$, then, from (\[equ:b.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s : \phi' : u \|&=\|\t : \phi_1 : u \|;\\
\|\s : \phi' : v \|&=\|\t : \phi_1 : v \|.
\end{aligned}$$ Then by the induction hypothesis, $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as required.

So assume further that $$\text{\rm $\|\s \phi_1(u)\| \neq \|\phi_1(u)\|$ and $\|\s
\phi_1(v)\| \neq \|\phi_1(v)\|$.}$$ It follows from (\[equ:b.2\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:b.3}
\|\s \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\s : \phi_1: u\|+\|\t : \phi_1: u\|; \\
\|\s \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\s :\phi_1 :v\|+\|\t :\phi_1: v\|.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\min \Delta \le  {\|\t: \phi_1: u\| \over \|\t : \phi_1: v\|},
{\|\s: \phi_1: u\| \over \|\s : \phi_1: v\|} \le \max \Delta$$ by the induction hypothesis, we obtain from (\[equ:b.3\]) that $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\s: \phi': u\| \over \|\s : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta,$$ as desired.

[**Claim C.**]{} $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\t: \phi': u\| \over \|\t : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta$$

[*Proof of Claim C.*]{} As in the proof of Claims A and B, writing $$\phi'=\t \phi_1,$$ where $\phi_1$ is a chain of type (C1), we consider two cases separately.

[**Case C.1.**]{} $\s$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

As in Case B.1, write $$\phi_1=\t^{m-1} \s \phi_2,$$ where $m \ge
1$ and $\phi_2$ is a chain of type (C1). Since $\phi'=\t
\phi_1$, $$\phi'=\t^m \s \phi_2.$$ It then follows from Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (ii) that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\t \t^m \phi_2(u)\|-\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|+\|\s \phi_2(u)\|-\|\phi_2(u)\|; \\
\|\t \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\t \t^m \phi_2(v)\|-\|\t^m \phi_2(v)\|+\|\s \phi_2(v)\|-\|\phi_2(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ By Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (i), we have $\|\s
\phi_2(u)\|=\|\phi_2(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\s
\phi_2(v)\|=\|\phi_2(v)\|$. Also by Corollary  \[cor:4.5\]  (iii), we get $\|\t \t^m \phi_2(u)\|=\|\t^m \phi_2(u)\|$ if and only if $\|\t \t^m \phi_2(v)\|=\|\t^m \phi_2(v)\|$. Hence we can apply a similar argument as in Cases  B.1 and B.2 to obtain the desired inequalities $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\t: \phi': u\| \over \|\t : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta.$$

[**Case C.2.**]{} $\t$ occurs at least $\|u\|+3$ times in $\phi_1$.

By Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i) with $\s$, $\t$ interchanged and $m=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t \phi'(u)\|-\|\phi'(u)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(u)\|-\|\phi_1(u)\|; \\
\|\t \phi'(v)\|-\|\phi'(v)\|&=\|\t \phi_1(v)\|-\|\phi_1(v)\|.
\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\t : \phi' : u \|&=\|\t : \phi_1 : u \|;\\
\|\t : \phi' : v \|&=\|\t : \phi_1 : v \|,
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\min \Delta \le
{\|\t: \phi': u\| \over \|\t : \phi': v\|} \le \max \Delta$$ by the induction hypothesis. This completes the proof of Claim  C.

Now the theorem is completely proved.

The following theorem is the converse of Theorem  \[thm:4.7\].

\[thm:4.8\] Let $u, v \in F_2$ with $\|u\| \ge \|v\|$, and $\Omega, \Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ be defined as in the statement of Theorem  \[thm:4.7\]. Put $k=\|u\|+1$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\psi_1 \in \Omega_1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\psi_2 \in \Omega_2$.

Suppose on the contrary that $$\label{equ:48.1}
\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{but} \
\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\| \neq \|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|$$ for some $\psi_1 \in \Omega_1$. (The treatment of the other cases is similar.) Put $$K=\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|-\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|.$$ By Lemma  \[lem:4.3\]  (i) and the second inequality of (\[equ:48.1\]), we have $K \ge 1$. By repeatedly applying Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{for every} \ i
\ge k;\\
&\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|+K(i+1-k) \ \text{for
every} \ i \ge k.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $${\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\| \over \|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(v)\|}={\|\s^k
\psi_1(u)\| \over \|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|+K(i+1-k)}$$ for every $i \ge k$, and thus $$\lim_{i \to \infty} {\|\s^{i+1} \psi_1(u)\| \over \|\s^{i+1}
\psi_1(v)\|}=0.$$ This contradiction to the the hypothesis that $u$ and $v$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$ completes the proof.

Consequently, in view of Theorems  \[thm:4.7\] and  \[thm:4.8\], we obtain the following algorithm to determine bounded translation equivalence in $F_2$.

Let $u, v \in F_2$ with $\|u\| \ge \|v\|$, and let $\Omega, \Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ be defined as in the statement of Theorem  \[thm:4.7\]. Put $k=\|u\|+1$. Check if it is true that $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\s^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\s^k \psi_1(v)\|; \\
&\|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(u)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(u)\| \ \text{if and only if}
\ \|\t^{k+1} \psi_1(v)\|=\|\t^k \psi_1(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for each $\psi_1 \in \Omega_1$, and if it is true that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\s^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\s^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|;\\
\|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(u)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(u)\| \ \text{if and only
if} \ \|\t^{-k-1} \psi_2(v)\|=\|\t^{-k} \psi_2(v)\|,
\end{aligned}$$ for each $\psi_2 \in \Omega_2$. If so, conclude that $u$ and $v$ are boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$; otherwise conclude that $u$ and $v$ are not boundedly translation equivalent in $F_2$.

Fixed point groups of automorphisms of $F_2$
============================================

In this section, we shall demonstrate that there exists an algorithm to decide whether or not a given finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$ is the fixed point group of some automorphism of $F_2$. If $H=\langle u_1, \dots, u_k \rangle$ is a finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$, then we define $$|H|:=\max_{1 \le i \le k} |u_i|.$$ Clearly $\|u_i\| \le |u_i| \le |H|$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$.

\[pro:5.3\] Let $H=\langle u_1, \dots, u_k \rangle$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$. Suppose that $\phi$ is a chain of type (C1) with $|\phi| \ge 4|H|+5$ such that $\|\phi(u_i)\|=\|u_i\|$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$. Then there exists a chain $\psi$ of type (C1) with $|\psi|<|\phi|$ such that $[\psi(u_i)]=[\phi(u_i)]$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$.

Since $\phi$ is a chain of type (C1) with $|\phi| \ge 4|H|+5$, $\phi$ contains at least $2|H|+3$ factors of $\s$ or $\t$. Suppose that $\phi$ contains at least $2|H|+3$ factors of $\s$ (the other case is similar). We may write $$\label{equ:5.0}
\phi=\t^{m_t} \s^{\ell_t}  \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1} \phi',$$ where all $\ell_i, m_i > 0$ but $\ell_1$ and $m_t$ may be zero, and $\phi'$ is a chain of type (C1) which contains exactly $|H|+2$ factors of $\s$.

Suppose that there exists $u_j$ ($1 \le j \le k$) such that $\| \s
\phi'(u_j)\| \neq \|\phi'(u_j)\|$. Put $$K=\| \s \phi'(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\|.$$ Since $\phi'$ contains at least $\|u_j\|+2$ factors of $\s$, by Lemma \[lem:4.3\]  (i), $K \ge 1$. Furthermore, since $\phi$ contains at least $2|H|+3$ factors of $\s$ and $\phi'$ contains exactly $|H|+2$ factors of $\s$, $$\label{equ:5.1.7}
\sum_{i=1}^t \ell_i \ge |H|+1 \ge \|u_j\|+1.$$

From the following claim, we shall obtain a contradiction.

[**Claim.**]{} $\|\phi(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\| \ge
\|u_j\|+1$.

[*Proof of the Claim.*]{} First assume that $m_1=0$ in (\[equ:5.0\]). Then $\phi=\s^{\ell_1}\phi'$, and so, from (\[equ:5.1.7\]), $\ell_1 \ge \|u_j\|+1$. By repeatedly applying Lemma  \[lem:4.1\]  (i), we have $$\|\phi(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\|=\ell_1K.$$ Since $K \ge 1$, it follows that $$\|\phi(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\|\ge \ell_1 \ge \|u_j\|+1,$$ as desired.

Next assume that $m_1 >0$ in (\[equ:5.0\]). In view of Lemmas  \[lem:4.1\] and \[lem:4.3\], we can observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\s^{\ell_1} \phi'(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\|&=\ell_1K; \\
\|\t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1} \phi'(u_j)\|-\|\s^{\ell_1} \phi'(u_j)\|
&\ge m_1K; \\
&\cdots  \\
\|\s^{\ell_t}  \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1}
\phi'(u_j)\|-\|\t^{m_{t-1}}\cdots \t^{m_1}
\s^{\ell_1}\phi'(u_j)\| &\ge \ell_tK; \\
\|\t^{m_t} \s^{\ell_t}  \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1}
\phi'(u_j)\|-\|\s^{\ell_t} \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1}\phi'(u_j)\|
&\ge m_tK.
\end{aligned}$$ Summing up all of these inequalities together with (\[equ:5.1.7\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi(u_j)\|-\|\phi'(u_j)\| &\ge \sum_{i=1}^t(\ell_i+m_i) K \\
 &\ge (\sum_{i=1}^t \ell_i) K \\
 & \ge \sum_{i=1}^t \ell_i \\
 & \ge \|u_j\|+1,
\end{aligned}$$ as required. This completes the proof of the claim.

It then follows from the claim that $$\|\phi(u_j)\| \ge \|\phi'(u_j)\| + \|u_j\|+1 \ge \|u_j\|+1.$$ But this yields a contradiction to the hypothesis that $\|\phi(u_j)\|=\|u_j\|$. Therefore, we must have $\| \s
\phi'(u_i)\|=\|\phi'(u_i)\|$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$. Then for each $i=1, \dots, k$, $$\label{equ:5.1.8}
\begin{split}
0=\|\s
\phi'(u_i)\|-\|\phi'(u_i)\|&=n([\phi'(u_i)];a)-2n([\phi'(u_i);
a,b^{-1})
\\
&=n([\phi'(u_i)];a, a)+n([\phi'(u_i)];a, b)-n([\phi'(u_i)];a,
b^{-1}).
\end{split}$$ Here, since $\phi'$ contains at least $\|u_i\|+2$ factors of $\s$, by Lemma  \[lem:2.4\], there cannot occur proper cancellation in passing from $[\phi'(u_i)]$ to $[\s \phi'(u_i)]$, and so every subword of $[\phi'(u_i)]$ of the form $ab^{-1}$ or $ba^{-1}$ is necessarily part of a subword of the form $ab^{-r}a^{-1}$ or $ab^ra^{-1}$ ($r
>0$), respectively. This implies that $$n([\phi'(u_i)];a, b) \ge n([\phi'(u_i)];a, b^{-1}),$$ so that, from (\[equ:5.1.8\]), $$\label{equ:5.1.9}
n([\phi'(u_i)];a, b) = n([\phi'(u_i)];a, b^{-1}) \ \text{and} \
n([\phi'(u_i)];a, a)=0.$$ From the fact that no proper cancellation can occur in passing from $[\phi'(u_i)]$ to $[\s \phi'(u_i)]$ together with (\[equ:5.1.9\]), each cyclic word $[\phi'(u_i)]$ must have the form $$[\phi'(u_i)]=[b^{s_{i1}}ab^{t_{i1}}a^{-1} \cdots
b^{s_{ir}}ab^{t_{ir}}a^{-1}],$$ where every $s_{ij}, t_{ij}$ is a nonzero integer, and hence $$[\s \phi'(u_i)]=[\phi'(u_i)]$$ for every $i=1, \dots, t$.

Thus letting $$\psi=\t^{m_t} \s^{\ell_t}  \cdots \t^{m_1} \s^{\ell_1-1}
\phi',$$ we finally have $$[\psi(u_i)]=[\phi(u_i)]$$ for every $i=1, \dots, t$. Obviously $|\psi|<|\phi|$, and so the proof of the theorem is completed.

We remark that Theorem \[pro:5.3\] also holds if (C1) is replaced by (C2). From now on, let $$\d_1=(\{a^{\pm 1}\}, b), \quad \d_2=(\{a^{\pm 1}\}, b^{-1}), \quad
\d_3=(\{b^{\pm 1}\}, a),  \quad \d_4=(\{b^{\pm 1}\}, a^{-1})$$ be Whitehead automorphisms of $F_2$ of type (W2).

\[lem:5.0.5\] Let $\a$ be a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W2). Then $\a$ can be expressed as a composition of $\s^{\pm 1}$, $\t^{\pm 1}$ and $\d_i$’s.

If $\a$ is not one of $\s^{\pm 1}$, $\t^{\pm 1}$ and $\d_i$’s, then $\a$ must be one of $(\{a^{-1}\}, b)$, $(\{a^{-1}\},
b^{-1})$, $(\{b^{-1}\}, a)$ and $(\{b^{-1}\}, a^{-1})$. Then the following easy identities $$\begin{aligned}
(\{a^{-1}\}, b)=\d_1 \s^{-1}; &\qquad (\{a^{-1}\}, b^{-1})=\d_2
\s;
\\
(\{b^{-1}\}, a)=\d_3 \t^{-1}; &\qquad (\{b^{-1}\}, a^{-1})=\d_4
\t
\end{aligned}$$ imply the required result.

The following two technical lemmas can be easily proved by direct calculations.

\[lem:5.1\] The following identities hold. $$\begin{aligned}
\s \d_1 &= \d_1 \s; & \s \d_2 &= \d_2 \s; & \s \d_3 &= \d_1
\d_3 \s; & \s \d_4 &= \d_4 \d_2 \s;\\
\t \d_1 &= \d_3 \d_1 \t; & \t \d_2 &= \d_2 \d_4 \t; & \t \d_3
&= \d_3 \t; & \t \d_4 &= \d_4 \t;\\
\s^{-1} \d_1 &= \d_1 \s^{-1}; & \s^{-1} \d_2 &= \d_2 \s^{-1}; &
\s^{-1} \d_3 &= \d_2
\d_3 \s^{-1}; & \s^{-1} \d_4 &= \d_4 \d_1 \s^{-1};\\
\t^{-1} \d_1 &= \d_4 \d_1 \t^{-1}; & \t^{-1} \d_2 &= \d_2 \d_3
\t^{-1}; & \t^{-1} \d_3 &= \d_3 \t^{-1}; & \t^{-1} \d_4 &= \d_4
\t^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$

\[lem:5.1.5\] The following identities hold. $$\begin{aligned}
\s \t^{-1}&= \pi \d_1 \s^{-1}; & \s^{-1} \t &= \pi^{-1} \d_3 \s; &
\t \s^{-1} &= \pi^{-1} \d_3 \t^{-1}; & \t^{-1} \s &= \pi
\d_1 \t;\\
\s \pi &=\pi \d_3 \t^{-1}; & \s \pi^{-1}&=\pi^{-1} \t^{-1}; &
\s^{-1} \pi &=\pi \d_4 \t; & \s^{-1} \pi^{-1} &=\pi^{-1} \t; \\
\t \pi &=\pi \s^{-1}; & \t \pi^{-1} &=\pi^{-1} \d_1 \s^{-1}; &
\t^{-1} \pi &=\pi \s; & \t^{-1} \pi^{-1} &=\pi^{-1} \d_2 \s,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1) that sends $a$ to $b$ and $b$ to $a^{-1}$.

The following corollary gives a nice description of automorphisms of $F_2$.

\[cor:5.2\] Every automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$ can be represented as $$\phi = \b \d \phi',$$ where $\b$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1), $\d$ is a composition of $\d_i$’s, and $\phi'$ is a chain of type (C1) or (C2).

By Whitehead’s Theorem (cf. [@whitehead]) together with Lemmas  \[lem:5.0.5\] and  \[lem:5.1\], an automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$ can be expressed as $$\label{equ:5.2}
\phi = \b' \d' \t^{q_t}\s^{p_t} \cdots \t^{q_1}\s^{p_1},$$ where $\b'$ is a Whitehead automorphism of $F_2$ of type (W1), $\d'$ is a composition of $\d_i$’s, and both $p_j, \, q_j$ are (not necessarily positive) integers for every $j=1, \dots, t$. If not every $p_j$ and $q_j$ has the same sign (including $0$), apply repeatedly Lemma  \[lem:5.1.5\] to the chain on the right-hand side of (\[equ:5.2\]) to obtain that either $\phi = \b'\pi^r \d
\t^{m_k}\s^{l_k} \cdots \t^{m_1}\s^{l_1}$ or $\phi = \b'\pi^r \d
\t^{-m_k}\s^{-l_k} \cdots \t^{-m_1}\s^{-l_1}$, where $\pi$ is as in Lemma  \[lem:5.1.5\], $r \in \Bbb Z$, $\d$ is a composition of $\d_i$’s, and both $l_j, \, m_j \ge 0$ for every $j=1, \dots,
k$. Putting $\b=\b'\pi^r$, we obtain the required result.

The following is the main result of this section.

\[pro:5.4\] Let $H=\langle u_1, \dots, u_k \rangle$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$. Suppose that $H$ is the fixed point group of an automorphism $\phi$ of $F_2$. Let $\Omega_1$ be the set of all chains of type (C1) or (C2) of length less than or equal to $4|H|+4$, and let $\Omega_2$ be the set of all compositions of $\d_i$’s of length less than or equal to $(2^{4|H|+4}+1)|H|$. Put $$\Omega=\{ \b \d' \psi' \, | \, \psi' \in \Omega_1, \d' \in
\Omega_2, \text{\it and $\b$ is a Whitehead auto of $F_2$ of type
(W1)}\}.$$ Then there exists $\psi \in \Omega$ of which $H$ is the fixed point group.

By Corollary  \[cor:5.2\], $\phi$ can be written as $$\phi=\b \d \phi',$$ where $\b, \d$ and $\phi'$ are indicated as in the statement of Corollary  \[cor:5.2\].

Since $\phi(u_i)=u_i$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$, it is easy to see that $$\|\phi'(u_i)\|=\|u_i\|$$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$. Then apply Theorem  \[pro:5.3\] continuously to obtain $\psi' \in \Omega_1$ such that $$[\psi'(u_i)]=[\phi'(u_i)]$$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$. Since $|\d
\phi'(u_i)|=|\phi(u_i)|=|u_i| \le |H|$ and $|\psi'(u_i)| \le
2^{4|H|+4}|u_i| \le 2^{4|H|+4}|H|$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$, we must have $\d' \in \Omega_2$ such that $$\d' \psi' (u_i)=\d \phi'(u_i)$$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$, and hence $$\b \d' \psi' (u_i)=\b \d \phi' (u_i)=u_i$$ for every $i=1, \dots, k$. Therefore, letting $$\psi=\b \d'
\psi',$$ we finally have $\psi \in \Omega$ and that $H$ is the fixed point subgroup of $\psi$. This completes the proof of the theorem.

In conclusion, we naturally derive from Theorem  \[pro:5.4\] the following algorithm to decide whether or not a given finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$ is the fixed point group of some automorphism of $F_2$.

Let $H=\langle u_1, \dots, u_k \rangle$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $F_2$. Let $\Omega_1, \Omega_2$ and $\Omega$ be defined as in the statement of Theorem  \[pro:5.4\]. Clearly $\Omega$ is a finite set. Check if there is $\psi \in \Omega$ for which $\psi(u_i)=u_i$ holds for every $i=1, \dots, k$. If so, conclude that $H$ is the fixed point group of some automorphism of $F_2$; otherwise conclude that $H$ is not the fixed point group of any automorphism of $F_2$.

[3]{}

G. Baumslag, A. G. Myasnikov and V. Shpilrain, [*Open problems in combinatorial group theory, Second edition*]{}, Contemp. Math. [**296**]{} (2002), 1–38.

M.Bestvina and M.Handel, [*Train tracks and automorphisms of free groups*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**135**]{} (1992), 1–53.

D. Collins and E. C. Turner, [*All automorphisms of free groups with maximal rank fixed subgroups*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 119 (1996), 615–630.

I. Kapovich, G. Levitt, P. E. Schupp and V. Shpilrain, [*Translation equivalence in free groups*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), no. 4, 1527–1546.

B. Khan, [*Positively generated subgroups of free groups and the Hanna Neumann conjecture*]{}, Contemp. Math., Amer. Math. Soc. 296 (2002), 155–170.

D. Lee, [*Translation equivalent elements in free groups*]{}, J. Group Theory (2006), vol. 9, 809–814.

D. Lee, [*An algorithm that decides translation equivalence in a free group of rank two*]{}, J. Group Theory (2007), vol. 10, 561–569.

J. Meakin and P. Weil, [*Subgroups of free groups: a contribution to the Hanna Neumann conjecture*]{}, Geom. Dedicata 94 (2002), 33-43.

A. Martino and E. Ventura, [*A description of auto-fixed subgroups of a free group*]{}, Topology 43 (2004), 1133–1164.

O. Maslakova, [*The fixed point group of an automorphism of a free group*]{}, Algebra i Logika 42 (2003), 422–472.

J. H. C. Whitehead, [*Equivalent sets of elements in a free group*]{}, Ann. of Math. 37 (1936), 782–800.
