For a null word , define its area as the least number of conjugates of defining relators or their inverses whose product is in the free group. By the van Kampen lemma, this is also its minimum number of relator faces in a disc diagram. The Dehn function is
The maximum is finite because there are finitely many words of bounded length. An isoperimetric function of a group presentation is a nondecreasing upper bound on . Here subrecursive means bounded above by a total computable function, not merely recursively enumerable.
Suppose with computable. Let be the maximum relator length, taking even if there are no relators. A minimum-area diagram for a boundary word of length , with at most faces, can be chosen with no unnecessary tree branches. Every remaining edge occurs on a face boundary or the outside boundary, so there are at most edges. Thus only finitely many combinatorial planar diagrams of area at most and this edge bound exist. Their finite edge labels and face labels can be enumerated, and the planar contractible diagram topology (allowing boundary spurs and pinched vertices), relator face boundaries and outside boundary word can be checked by finite combinatorial operations.
For the input , compute and inspect all these diagrams. Answer yes if one has boundary , and no otherwise. The diagram bound and van Kampen lemma prove correctness, including the negative answer. This finite search avoids the invalid attempt to bound area while allowing unbounded conjugating words.
Conversely, suppose a word problem decider is available. For each , enumerate the finitely many words of length at most and use the decider to identify exactly the null words. For each such word search diagrams in increasing area, with the finite edge bound just given at each area. The search terminates, and the first successful area is its minimum area. Taking the maximum of these finitely many minima computes . This proves the recursive area bounds and the word problem equivalence:
In fact, for finite group presentations, a word decider computes the minimal Dehn function itself.
An algorithm is a finite effective procedure on finitely encoded inputs; a Turing machine is one precise model. A decision algorithm must halt on every permitted input and answer correctly. An algorithmic problem specifies the input encoding and the required output; enumerating positive answers alone is not a decision algorithm.
For a fixed finite group presentation , the word problem for a group takes a finite word in and asks whether it represents the identity. Equality of two represented elements is equivalent to testing . Positive answers are recursively enumerable: enumerate finite products of conjugates of relators and their inverses, freely reduce them, and compare with the input. Equivalently enumerate finite labelled disc diagrams. The van Kampen lemma ensures that every null word eventually appears. For a non-null word this search continues forever. Solvability requires a procedure that also terminates with a negative answer.
The universal cover is simply connected. Hence the closed combinatorial path is null-homotopic in its two-dimensional CW complex. The van Kampen lemma supplies a finite disc diagram mapping to with precisely that boundary path.
Choose such a diagram with the smallest possible number of two-cells, and then with the smallest number of edges. If two adjacent cells formed a cancellable pair, removing that pair would preserve the boundary path and reduce the area, a contradiction. Thus
This does not assume that is simply connected. Only the loop's null-homotopy in is used. If the two boundary paths agree, a diagram with no two-cells is allowed; if they share initial or final segments, the diagram may have tree portions or cut vertices. A disc diagram need not be an embedded topological disk.