arXiv:2103.17167v1 [math.DS] 31 Mar 2021 esr-hoei opeiyi ie ae nteintrodu the in later given is complexity measure-theoretic preserving 1.1. able n yZme n[3 4 rudtesm ie opoemultip prove to time, same the around 44] for [43, in Zimmer by and ecito ftecaatrsi atr oenn mult governing factors characteristic the of description [24 a theory structure Host-Kra-Ziegler the in refined structu cantly Furstenberg-Zimmer The [39]. theorem Szemerédi’s nteae fhge-re ore nlssiiitdb Go by 20]. initiated [19, analysis theorem Szemerédi’s Fourier on higher-order of fo a area - the [21] Ziegler in and Tao, Green, inve by the norms as uniformity known Gowers is theorem structure The Host-Kra-Ziegler nilmanifolds. on the rotations of limits inverse as actions 1 eecutberfr osseso onal measure-theo countable of systems to refers countable Here Z 1 NUCUTBEFRTNEGZME STRUCTURE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER UNCOUNTABLE AN Motivation. atosadso htti utpercrec hoe se is theorem recurrence multiple this that show and -actions usebr-imrsrcueter,dvlpdb i nt in him by developed theory, structure Furstenberg-Zimmer hoyadteitra oi ncranBoentopoi. Boolean sy certain of in analysis logic internal relative the the by and between theory independent connection an As new work. a this tablish w in presentation manner self-contained the a and in the arguments and the perspective in of simplifications change some an the However, to factor. tools a novel to introduce ative to de had we systems pe and to spaces, our spaces probability change probability to concrete on had defined we systems generalization desired theor the structure achieve To restrictio Furstenberg-Zimmer these a remove establish to and is uation article un this of the aim on The hypotheses spaces. separability and situati countability relative the certain systems, arbitrary and for ge dichotomy known are unconditional and tions the algebraic Although those sought. of are esta analogues tions is conditional dichotomy and such factor where a setting, me conditional a a de to of geometric and parts parts algebraic the mixing and weakly system dynamical and serving compact the between dichotomy A bstract Z atoso tnadBrlpoaiiysae.Teprecise The spaces. probability Borel standard on -actions usebr-imrsrcueter eest h extens the to refers theory structure Furstenberg-Zimmer . ntepoern ok[5,Frtnegapidtecount- the applied Furstenberg [15], work pioneering the In SA JAMNESHAN ASGAR .I 1. THEORY ntroduction 1 ction. ei opeiysc smeasure- as such complexity retic ni nesodunder understood is on si h eaiesit- relative the in ns eliggopand group derlying nfl generality. full in y lse eaieto relative blished 2 hc establishes which 42] , lz ytm rel- systems alyze percrec for recurrence iple citoso such of scriptions ntr onepr of counterpart finitary e ol edto lead tools new tm nergodic in stems h characteriza- the ndo abstract on fined mti descrip- ometric ihw arrange we hich rdc,w es- we product, e’ eia work seminal wer’s setv from rspective eter ssignifi- is theory re s hoe o the for theorem rse enn fcountable of meaning nainlresult undational sr pre- asure o fthe of ion esm article same he erecurrence le uvln to quivalent Z - 2 A. JAMNESHAN

Jointly with Tao, we aim at establishing a Host-Kra-Ziegler structure theory for arbitrary (not necessarily countable) abelian group actions on arbitrary (not necessarily separable) probability algebras such as the action of ultraproducts of finite abelian groups on the probability algebra of Loeb probability spaces. The hope is that such a theory (i) may help to unify the Host-Kra-Ziegler structure theory with higher-order Fourier analysis, (ii) lead to new insight in the inverse theorem for the Gowers uniformity norms, and (iii) may establish analogous inverse theorems for a larger class of abelian groups. By proving an uncount- able Moore-Schmidt theorem [27] and an uncountable Mackey-Zimmer theorem [28], first steps towards an uncountable Host-Kra-Ziegler structure theorem are accomplished by Tao and the author. The present paper aims to establish another part of this program by developing an uncountable Furstenberg-Zimmer struc- ture theory.

1.2. Main results. Let Γ be a group and X be a σ-complete Boolean algebra equipped with a countably additive measure µ of total mass 1. Suppose that Γ acts on the probability algebra2 (X, µ) by a group homomorphism T : Γop → Aut(X, µ), where Aut(X, µ) denotes the automorphism group of (X, µ) and Γop the opposite group. The automorphisms of (X, µ) are measure preserving bijective Boolean homomorphisms of X. We call = (X, µ, T) an opposite probability X algebra Γ-dynamical system. The category of such dynamical systems and some basic tools to study them are collected in the preliminaries in Section 2. A main goal of this paper is to establish the following

Theorem 1.1 (Uncountable Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theorem). Let Γ be a group. For any opposite probability algebra Γ-dynamical system = (X, µ, T) X there exist an ordinal β and for each ordinal α β a factor = ≤ X → Yα (Yα,να, S α) satisfying the following properties: (i) is trivial. Y0 (ii) + is a compact extension for every successor ordinal α+1 β. Yα 1 → Yα ≤ (iii) is the inverse limit of the systems , η < α for every limit ordinal Yα Yη α β, in the sense that Y is generated by Y as a σ-complete ≤ α η<α η Boolean algebra. S (iv) is a weakly mixing extension. X → Yβ

2In the ergodic theory literature, it is common to call the pair(X, µ), where X is a σ-complete Boolean algebra and µ is a countably additive probability measure on X,a measure algebra, e.g., see [17, 32]. We follow the conventions in Fremlin [14] to call(X, µ)a probability algebra and reserve the name measure algebra for abstract measures of arbitrary total mass. AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 3

Theorem 1.1 follows from the following relative dichotomy between weakly and compact extensions of opposite probability algebra Γ-dynamical systems by transfinite induction.

Theorem 1.2 (Uncountable relative dichotomy). Let = (X, µ, T) and = X Y (Y, ν, S ) be opposite probability algebra Γ-dynamical systems and π : an X → Y extension. Exactly one of the following statements is true. (i) π : is a weakly mixing extension. X → Y (ii) There exist an opposite probability algebra Γ-dynamical system = Z (Z,λ, R) and extensions φ : and ψ : such that ψ is a X → Z Z → Y non-trivial compact extension.

We prove Theorem 1.2 in Section 6. Compact and weakly mixing extensions of opposite probability algebra systems are defined in Sections 4 and 6 respec- tively. Moreover, we establish various characterizations of compact extensions in terms of (a) certain invariant finitely generated modules, (b) non-trivial invari- ant conditional Hilbert-Schmidt operators, and (c) conditionally almost periodic orbits. We establish the equivalence of (a)-(c) in smaller conditional L∞-modules similarly to the classical theory and also in larger conditional L0-modules (where L0 denotes the ring of equivalence classes of all complex measurable functions), and we show that these descriptions in the larger and the smaller modules are equivalent. In the case of ergodic systems, we prove in Section 5 that compact extensions are isomorphic to isometric extensions (that is, opposite probability algebra homogeneous skew-product systems as introduced in [28]). These results are well understood for systems of countable measure-theoretic complexity, see [15, 43, 44] for the original papers and [10, 16, 17, 32, 40] for some textbook expositions. The aim of this paper is to extend them to systems of uncountable measure-theoretic complexity. We say that an opposite probabil- ity algebra Γ-dynamical system (X, µ, T) has countable measure-theoretic com- plexity if Γ is countable and (X, µ) is separable3, and has uncountable measure- theoretic complexity otherwise. In Table 1, we compare some features of systems of countable and uncountable complexity. We establish a Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theory for not necessarily count- able groups and not necessarily separable probability algebras. To achieve such generality we have to introduce novel tools to study the structure of opposite probability algebra systems relative to some factor since many classical tools such as disintegration of measures, measurable selection lemmas, and the the- ory of measurable Hilbert bundles rely on such countability and separability

3We have a metric structure on X defined by d(E, F) = µ(E∆F). 4 A. JAMNESHAN

Countable complexity Uncountable complexity Countable group actions Uncountable group actions Standard Borel probability spaces Inseparable probability algebras Pointwise action by measurable Pointfree action by Boolean functions homomorphisms Cantor models Canonical Stonean models Borel measurability Baire measurability Homogeneous skew-product extensions Homogeneous skew-product extensions by metrizable compact groups by compact Hausdorff groups von Neumann mean ergodic theorem Alaoglu-Birkhoff ergodic theorem Countable Furstenberg towers Uncountable Furstenberg towers Classical disintegration of measures Canonical disintegration of measures measurable Hilbert bundles Conditional Hilbert spaces Measurable selection theory Conditional analysis Table 1. The group-theoretic, measure-theoretic, topological and methodological differences of systems of countable and un- countable complexity (with a view towards their Furstenberg- Zimmer structure theory). hypotheses. Instead, we apply tools from topos theory as suggested in [41] by Tao. We will not use topos theory directly nor define a sheaf anywhere in this paper. Instead, we use the closely related conditional analysis as developed in [5, 8, 13]. A main advantage of conditional analysis is that it can be setup with- out much costs and understood with basic knowledge in measure theory and functional analysis. The ergodic theoretic results of this paper are organized in a self-contained presentation and no familiarity with topos theory is required for the reader purely interested in the ergodic theoretic content. In fact, the use of conditional analysis and the greater generality lead to significant simplifications of several of the proofs of the results in Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theory. For the readers familiar with topos theory and interested in the connection between ergodic theory and topos theory, we include several extensive remarks relating the conditional analysis of this paper to the internal discourse in Boolean Grothendieck sheaf topoi. To the best knowledge of the author these remarks comprise novel insight into the semantics of such topoi. We would like to point out that in a forthcoming work [9] a different proof of Theorem 1.1 is provided which is based on a functional analytic decomposition theorem for group representations on Kaplansky-Hilbert modules.

1.3. Technical innovations. Apriori probability algebras are not σ-algebras of subsets of an underlying set. We view probability algebras as abstract pointfree probability spaces as opposed to concrete point-set probability spaces defined on AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 5

σ-algebras of sets. In countable ergodic theory, the starting point are concrete countably generated probability spaces on which a measure-preserving action by a countable or second-countable group on the underlying set is defined. In the countable theory, a distinction is made between an action which is defined everywhere on the underlying set and a near-action which is only defined almost everywhere. This distinction is non-trivial, since there are natural examples of systems of countable complexity for Polish group near-actions that cannot be realized by a pointwise action, e.g., see [18, 35]. In uncountable ergodic theory, the starting point are arbitrary (not necessarily countably generated or separable) probability algebras on which an arbitrary (not necessarily countable or second-countable) group acts by measure-preserving Boolean isomorphisms. A major advantage of working with pointfree probabil- ity algebras is that one systematically avoids to have to deal with null set issues. In this regard, the abstract pointfree perspective, which has been already im- plemented in our previous works [27, 28] and systematically developed in the foundational paper [29], seems to be more natural in uncountable ergodic theory. Furthermore, the category of opposite probability algebra dynamical systems is dually equivalent to the dynamical category of commutative tracial von Neu- mann algebras (see Figure 1) such that all structural results established in this pa- per for opposite probability algebra dynamical systems have natural analogues in the dynamical category of commutative tracial von Neumann algebras, see [32, §3.2] for this correspondence for systems of countable complexity. See [37, §2] for a proof of a non-commutative Furstenberg-Zimmer dichotomy of weakly mixing and compact extensions for countable groups and separable von Neu- mann algebras. In fact, the analogies extend also to the other two dynamical cat- egories of commutative tracial C∗-algebras and topological dynamical systems preserving a Baire-Radon probability measure in Figure 1 by restricting to the image of the Conc and Inc functors, see Section 2 for further details. On the other hand, by quotienting out the null ideal, to any concrete countable complexity system we can associate an abstract probability algebra system. In this regard, the abstract perspective is implicitly present in the countable theory, e.g., see [16, §5], [17, §2], the preliminaries of [43, 44], and the expositions in [40, 32]. In order to study the Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theory of abstract point- free systems analogues of some basic and more advanced tools from measure theory and functional analysis are required. These are basic Hilbert theory of L2-spaces, disintegration of measures, and the theory of measurable Hilbert bun- dles. However, classical disintegration of measures and the theory of measurable 6 A. JAMNESHAN

Hilbert bundles are in general only applicable for systems of countable measure- theoretic complexity. Therefore, the main technical difficulty in extending the Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theory is to find viable alternatives which work for abstract systems of uncountable measure-theoretic complexity as well. We divide the above tools into two sets. The first set are basic tools from measure theory and the second one consists of tools needed for the analysis relative to some factor. For the first group we have two options. We can either use the abstract mea- sure theory for measure algebras as systematically developed in [14], or we can use concrete measure theory after passing to a canonical model. The canoni- cal model, which is introduced in Section 2 (see also [11] and the references given in Remark 2.5), is a functor associating to any opposite probability algebra dynamical system a unique compact Hausdorff probability measure preserving dynamical system where the underlying group acts by homeomorphisms. The canonical model comes with some favorable properties, for example a canonical disintegration of measures, see Section 2.4. We replace the second set of tools by conditional analysis which permits to perform analysis in relative situations without any countability or separability assumptions. More precisely, we introduce a conditional Hilbert space and its conditional tensor product and study a conditional Gram-Schmidt process and a conditional spectral theorem for conditional Hilbert-Schmidt operators in Sec- tion 3.

Acknowledgements. The author was supported by DFG-research fellowship JA 2512/3-1. The author offers his thanks to Terence Tao for suggesting this project, many helpful discussions, and his support. The author would like to thank Markus Haase for organizing an online workshop on structural ergodic theory where the results of this paper and the parallel work [9] could be dis- cussed. He is also grateful to Nikolai Edeko, Markus Haase and Henrik Kreidler for pointing out an incompleteness in one proof in an earlier version of the man- uscript and their helpful comments.

2. Preliminaries 2.1. The categories. Throughout this paper, we fix an arbitrary group Γ. We define the category of opposite probability algebra Γ-dynamical systems to be the dual of a category of Boolean algebras equipped with a probability measure preserving dynamical structure. We will built up this dual category step by step starting with the relevant category of Boolean algebras to whose objects we first AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 7 add a probability structure which we then promote to a dynamical one. An in- depth discussion of this categorical approach to ergodic theory and adjacent areas in measure theory and functional analysis including a discussion of other relevant categories such as the adjacent auxiliary categories depicted in Figure 1 together with useful references and some background material on category theory can be found in the accompanying paper [29] (see also [28]), to the relevant parts of which we will provide an exact referencing as we proceed. op op Definition 2.1 (The category PrbAlgΓ ). The category PrbAlgΓ can be identi- 4 fied with the opposite category of PrbAlgΓop . So we start by defining the cate- op gories Boolσ, PrbAlg and PrbAlgΓop where Γ denotes the opposite group. A Bool -object is a σ-complete Boolean algebra X = (X, , ,¯, 0, 1) and σ ∨ ∧ · a Boolσ-morphism from a Boolσ-algebra X to another Boolσ-algebra Y is a σ- complete Boolean homomorphism f : X Y. → The objects of PrbAlg are probability algebras (X, µ) where X is a Boolσ- algebra and µ : X [0, 1] is a countably additive probability measure, that is (i) → µ( n En) = n µ(En) for any sequence (En) of pairwise disjoint elements in X, (ii)Wµ(X) = 1,P and (iii) µ(E) = 0 if and only if E = 0. A PrbAlg-morphism from a PrbAlg-algebra (Y,ν) to another PrbAlg-algebra (X, µ) is a Boolean algebra homomorphism π : Y X such that µ π(E) = ν(E) for all E Y, where we de- → ∗ ∈ note by µ π the pullback probability measure on Y defined by µ π(E) ≔ µ(π(E)). ∗ ∗ The Boolσ-algebra X of a PrbAlg-object automatically upgrades to a complete Boolean algebra (that is, a Boolean algebra in which arbitrary joins and meets ex- ists) and the underlying Boolean algebra homomorphism of a PrbAlg-morphism automatically upgrades to a complete Boolean algebra homomorphism (that is, one that preserves arbitrary joins and meets), see Remark 2.2. Let Aut(X, µ) denote the automorphism group of a PrbAlg-algebra (X, µ) in the category PrbAlg. A PrbAlgΓop -system is a tuple (X, µ, T) where (X, µ) is a op op PrbAlg-algebra and T : Γ Aut(X, µ) is a group homomorphism γ T op . → 7→ γ A PrbAlgΓop -morphism from a PrbAlgΓop -system (Y, ν, S ) to another PrbAlgΓop - system (X, µ, T)isa PrbAlg-morphism π : (Y,ν) (X, µ) such that Tγop π = op op → ◦ π S op for all γ Γ . ◦ γ ∈ Now we define the dual categories of the previously introduced categories of algebras. The category AbsMbl of abstract measurable spaces is the oppo- op site category of Boolσ. We define the category PrbAlg of opposite probabil- ity algebras to be the opposite category of PrbAlg. If (X, µ) is an PrbAlgop- op object with automorphism group Aut(X, µ), we can define a PrbAlgΓ -system

4Here we follow the conventions in [29] to color categories of algebras in red and categories of spaces in black where a pair of a category of spaces and a category of algebras relating to one another are dually equivalent. 8 A. JAMNESHAN

τ Inc τ CvNAlgΓop CC∗AlgΓop

L∞ Proj C Riesz PrbAlgop CHPrb Γ Conc Γ

Figure 1. The adjacent auxiliary dynamical categories. Hooked arrows are faithful functors that are injective on objects, while arrows with two heads are full functors, and a dashed arrow is a contravariant functor. The diagram commutes up to natural iso- morphisms. to be a tuple (X, µ, T) such that T : Γ Aut(X, µ) is a group homomorphism op → op γ Tγ. A PrbAlgΓ -morphism from a PrbAlgΓ -system (X, µ, T) to another 7→ op op PrbAlgΓ -system (Y, ν, S )isa PrbAlg -morphism π : (X, µ) (Y,ν) such that op → S γ π = π Tγ for all γ Γ. We call PrbAlgΓ the category of opposite proba- ◦ ◦ ∈ op bility algebra Γ-dynamical systems. By construction, PrbAlgΓ can be identified with the opposite category of PrbAlgΓop . op op We denote a PrbAlgΓ -system by = (X, µ, T). If π : is a PrbAlgΓ - op X X → Y op morphism, we call a PrbAlgΓ -extension of and a PrbAlgΓ -factor of X op Y Y op . We sometimes also refer to the PrbAlgΓ -morphism π itself as a PrbAlgΓ - X op extension or a PrbAlgΓ -factor (depending on the perspective we want to em- phasize). An extensive discussion of the previously introduced categories can be found in [29, §6].

Remark 2.2. It is well known that the Boolσ-algebra X of a PrbAlg-algebra (X, µ) is automatically a complete Boolean algebra. We provide the short proof for the convenience of the reader. Let (Ei)i I be an arbitrary family in X. Well- ∈ order I by < and let Fi = Ei j0 Fi, and by σ-completeness of X, ∈ ∈ i I,Fi,0 Fi X. Moreover ifWπ : (Y,ν) W (X, µ)isa PrbAlg-morphism (the un- ∈ ∈ → derlyingW Boolσ-morphism of which does not necessarily preserve countable joins and meets by definition), then π automatically upgrades to a complete Boolean homomorphism due to the automatic injectivity of π and the countable chain condition, cf. [28, Remark 1.2].

op Next we introduce some basic tools to study the structure of PrbAlgΓ -systems. op We obtain these tools by relating the category PrbAlgΓ to some adjacent auxil- iary dynamical categories of algebras and spaces as illustrated in Figure 1. AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 9

Definition 2.3 (Adjacent dynamical categories). First we introduce the remain- ing categories in Figure 1 without a dynamical structure. Then we apply a univer- sal procedure to turn these categories into corresponding dynamical categories.

(i) A CHPrb-space is a tuple (X, a(X), µ) where X is a compact Haus- B dorff space, a(X) is the Baire σ-algebra of X (that is, the smallest σ- B algebra on X rendering continuous functions measurable), and µ is a Baire-Radon probability measure on the measurable space (X, a(X)). B A CHPrb-morphism π : (X, a(X), µ) (Y, a(Y),ν) between compact B → B Hausdorff probability spaces is a continuous function π : X Y such → that π µ = ν, where π µ denotes pushforward measure (a continuous ∗ ∗ function between compact Hausdorff spaces is always Baire-measurable

since its pullback preservers compact Gδ sets). τ (ii) A CC∗Alg -algebra ( , τ) is a unital commutative C∗-algebra equipped A with a state τ : C, that is a bounded linear functional which is non- A → negative (it maps non-negative elements to non-negative reals) and is of τ operator norm 1. A CC∗Alg -morphism Φ : ( , τ ) ( , τ ) between A B τ A → B CC∗Alg -algebras is a unital -homomorphism Φ : such that ∗ A→B τ Φ = τ . B ◦ A (iii) A CvNAlgτ-algebra ( , τ ) is a commutative von Neumann algebra A A A equipped with a faithful trace τ , that is to say a -linear functional τ : A ∗ A C with τ (1) = 1, and τ (aa∗) 0 for any a , with equality A → A A ≥ ∈ A if and only if a = 0. A CvNAlgτ-morphism Φ : ( , τ ) ( , τ ) A A → B B between CvNAlgτ-algebras is a von Neumann algebra homomorphism Φ : such that τ = τ Φ. A→B A B ◦ τ τ Let be one of the categories CHPrb, CC∗Alg , or CvNAlg . For a -object X, C C let Aut (X) be the automorphism group of X in (e.g. the group of measure- C C preserving homeomorphisms of X when = CHPrb or the group of state- C τ preserving -automorphisms of X when = CC∗Alg ). We define a Γ-object ∗ C C (resp. a Γop -object) to be a tuple (X, T), where X is a -object and T : Γ C C → Aut (X) is a homomorphism γ T γ of groups (resp. T : Γop Aut (X)isaho- C C op γop 7→ → momorphism γ T of groups). A Γ-morphism π : (X, T) (Y, S ) (resp. 7→ C → Γop -morphism π : (Y, S ) (X, T)) between Γ-objects (resp. Γop -objects) is a C → C C -morphism π : X Y (resp. a -morphism π : Y X) obeying the inter- C → C → op op twining property π T γ = S γ π for all γ Γ (resp. π S γ = T γ π for all ◦ ◦ ∈ ◦ ◦ γop Γop). ∈

2.2. The functors. The functors in Figure 1, in particular L∞, C, Proj, Riesz, and Conc, are the means by which we represent the objects and morphismsin the 10 A. JAMNESHAN

τ τ CvNAlg CC∗Alg

L∞ Proj C Riesz PrbAlgop CHPrb

Figure 2. The Gelfand-type dualities between opposite probabil- ity algebras and tracial commutative von Neumann algebra and between compact Hausdorff probability spaces and tracial com- mutative unital C∗-algebras.

op dynamical category PrbAlgΓ by objects and morphisms in the adjacent dynami- τ τ cal categories CHPrbΓ, CvNAlgΓop , CC∗AlgΓop in order to use the tools available in the latter categories to study structural properties of systems in the former, while the canonical model functor Conc is our main player. We start by describ- ing the two Gelfand-type dualities in Figure 2 which yield the dualities of the dynamical categories in Figure 1 from which we then derive the canonical model functor Conc in the same figure. Gelfand duality (cf. Figure 3) establishes a well known equivalence between the category CH of compact Hausdorff spaces and the category CC∗Alg of uni- tal commutative C∗-algebras. The functor Spec associates to each unital com- mutative C∗-algebra its spectrum Spec( ) (the set of CC∗Alg-morphisms A A from to C) which is a compact Hausdorff space by the Banach-Alaoglu the- A orem and to each unital -homomorphism Φ : the continuous function ∗ A→B Spec(Φ) : Spec( ) Spec( ), Spec(Φ)( f ) := f Φ. The functor C asso- B → A ◦ ciates with each compact Hausdorff space X the unital commutative C∗-algebra C(X) of continuous functions f : X C and with each continuous function → π : X Y between CH-spaces the Koopmann operator C(π) : C(Y) C(X), → → C(π)( f ):= f π. See [29, §2] for a more detailed exposition. ◦ The Gelfand duality in Figure 3 extends to a "Riesz duality" between CHPrb τ and CC∗Alg as follows. A CHPrb-space (X, a(X), µ) is mapped via the C- τ B functor to the CC∗Alg -algebra (C(X), τ ) where the state τ : C(X) C is µ µ → defined by integration τ ( f ) := fdµ. If π : (X, a(X), µ) (Y, a(Y),ν) is µ X B → B a CHPrb-morphism, then the KoopmanR operator C(π) : C(Y) C(X) satisfies → τν = τµ C(π). Conversely, using Gelfand duality and the Riesz representation ◦ τ theorem we can associate to each CC∗Alg -algebra ( , τ ) a unique CHPrb- A A space Riesz( , τ ) ≔ (Spec( ), a(Spec( )), µτ ). Uniqueness in the Riesz A A A A B A τ representation theorem also yields that if Φ : ( , τ ) ( , τ ) isa CC∗Alg - A A → B B morphism, then the continuous function Spec(Φ): Spec( ) Spec( ) pushes B → Aτ forward ντ to µτ . This "Riesz duality" between CHPrb and CC∗Alg can be B A promoted in the obvious way to a duality between the corresponding dynamical AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 11

CC∗Alg

C Spec CH

Figure 3. Gelfand duality between the category of compact Hausdorff spaces and commutative unital C∗-algebras.

τ categories CHPrbΓ and CC∗AlgΓop . This establishes the duality on the right-hand side of Figure 2. See [29, §5] for a more detailed exposition. As for the duality on the left-hand side of Figure 2, let (X, µ)bea PrbAlgop- space. We define L∞(X) to be the set of AbsMbl-morphisms f : X o(C), → B where o(C) denotes the Borel σ-algebra of the complex numbers C, which are B bounded in the sense that there exists a real number M 0 such that f ( z ≥ { ∈ C : z M ) = 1, with f defined to equal the infimum of all such M. | | ≤ } k kL∞(X) We can equip L∞(X) with the structure of a commutative -algebra by lifting all ∗ -algebra operations from C to the set of all AbsMbl-morphisms f : X o(C) ∗ →B (without the boundedness property), see the last paragraph of [29, §6]. Clearly,

L∞(X) is closed under the restriction of these operations to it. Every element E of

X generates an idempotent element 1E of L∞(X), see the beginning of [29, §7] for the definition. The set of finite linear combinations of idempotents form a dense subspace of L∞(X). One can then define a trace τ on this algebra by defining N ≔ N τ( n=1 cn1En ) n=1 cnµ(En) for any finite sequence of complex numbers cn and E P X, and thenP extending by density. Thus L∞(X) can be viewed as an element n ∈ of CvNAlgτ. If π: X Y is a PrbAlgop-morphism, one can define the CvNAlgτ- → morphism L∞(π): L∞(Y) L∞(X) by the Koopman operator L∞(π)( f ) ≔ f T. → ◦ Conversely, suppose that ( , τ ) is a CvNAlgτ-algebra. We can form the A A collection of real projections in . As is well-known, these projections PA A have the structure of a complete Boolean algebra. The trace τ then becomes A a countably additive probability measure on , and we write Proj( , τ ) PA A A for the opposite probability algebra of ( , τ ). If Φ: ( , τ ) ( , τ ) is a PA A A A → B B CvNAlgτ-morphism, we observe that the associated von Neumann algebra ho- momorphism Φ: maps projections in to projections in , in a A→B PA PB manner that preserves the trace as well as being a Boolσ-morphism. We then define Proj(Φ): Proj( , τ ) Proj( , τ ) to be the PrbAlgop-morphism as- B B → A A sociated with this Boolσ-morphism. See [29, §7] for a proof that Proj and L∞ establish a duality of categories between CvNAlgτ and PrbAlgop. This duality τ op then extends naturally to the dynamical categories CvNAlgΓop and PrbAlgΓ . Every von Neumann algebra is also a unital C∗-algebra, and a faithful trace on a commutative von Neumann algebra becomes a state on the corresponding 12 A. JAMNESHAN

op AlgAbs PrbAlgΓ CHPrbΓ

Figure 4. The AlgAbs functor first abstracts away from the set structure of a CHPrbΓ-system and then deletes the null ideal of op this abstract system to obtain a PrbAlgΓ -system.

C∗-algebra. From this it is easy to see that there is a forgetful inclusion functor τ τ Inc from CvNAlgΓop to CC∗AlgΓop . Finally, we define the canonical model functor by

Conc := Riesz Inc L∞. ◦ ◦ Remark 2.4. There is a more direct way to define the canonical model functor using the Stone and Loomis-Sikorski representation theorems where the under- lying compact Hausdorff space is the Stonean space associated to a complete Boolean algebra by Stone’s representation theorem, e.g., see [29, §9].

Remark 2.5. The canonical model has been implicitly introduced in the litera- ture at several occasions, e.g., see [14, 38, 6, 12, 11, 30, 7, 22] where such models are also referred to as “Stone” or “Kakutani models”. op If Γ is a countable group, we denote by SpProbAlgΓ the subcategory of op op PrbAlgΓ whose systems consist of separable PrbAlg -spaces. In [17, §2], a op “Cantor model” is associated to SpProbAlgΓ -systems which satisfies some func- toriality, where such Cantor models are formed on closed subspaces of the clas- sical Cantor set. These Cantor models are not canonical, but amenable to classi- cal tools such as disintegration of measures. Furstenberg [16, §5-6] works with “separable systems” which are concrete probability spaces on which a count- op able group acts measure-preservingly such that the associated PrbAlgΓ -systems (with the help of the AlgAbs-functor which is described below) are in the sub- op category SpProbAlgΓ .

op The categories PrbAlgΓ and CHPrbΓ are not dual to each other (similarly, as τ τ the categories CvNAlgΓop and CC∗AlgΓop are not so). However we have a functor op AlgAbs (cf. Figure 4) that associates with every CHPrbΓ-system a PrbAlgΓ - system such that AlgAbs Conc is naturally isomorphic to the identity functor op ◦ on PrbAlgΓ . Next we define the functor AlgAbs. Let (X, a(X), µ) be a CHPrb-space. B Denote by the µ-null ideal of a(X), that is the collection of E a(X) such Nµ B ∈B that µ(E) = 0. We can form the quotient Boolean σ-algebra X = a(X)/ µ B Nµ by identifying E, F a(X) if E∆F . Let π : a(X) X be the ∈ B ∈ Nµ X B → µ canonical Bool -epimorphism. We define a probability measureµ ˆ : X [0, 1] σ µ → AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 13 byµ ˆ(π(E)) ≔ µ(E). We obtain a PrbAlg-algebra (Xµ, µˆ), applying the oppo- site functor to (X , µˆ) associates with (X, a(X), µ) a PrbAlgop-space. If f : µ B (X, a(X), µ) (Y, a(Y),ν) is a CHPrb-morphism, then the pullback map B → B 1 f ∗ : a(Y) a(X) defined by E f ∗(E) ≔ f − (E) is a Bool -morphism. B → B 7→ σ We define the PrbAlgop-morphism AlgAbs( f ) : (X , µˆ) (Y , νˆ) by π (E) µ → ν Y 7→ AlgAbs( f )(πY (E)) ≔ πX( f ∗(E)). The functor AlgAbs promotes to a functor op from CHPrbΓ to PrbAlgΓ . The functor AlgAbs is not injective on objects since a CHPrb-space and its measure-theoretic completion are mapped to the same PrbAlgop-space. Moreover, Conc(AlgAbs(X, a(X), µ)) is typically much larger B than (X, a(X), µ). B

2.3. Abstract Lebesgue spaces. The following notations will be used through- out the remainder of this paper. Let = (X, µ, T) be a PrbAlgop-system. We denote the canonical model X Γ Conc( ) by ˜, its underlying Stonean space by X˜ (cf. Remark 2.4), its Baire- X X Radon measure byµ ˜, and its Γ-action by T˜, so that

Conc( ) = ˜ = (X˜, a(X˜), µ,˜ T˜). X X B If π : is a PrbAlgop-factor, then we denote its canonical representation X → Y Γ Conc(π)byπ ˜. We can use the canonical model to define integration and Lebesgue spaces for probability algebras5. For any 0 p , we define the complex space ≤ ≤∞ Lp(X) = Lp(X, µ) ≔ Lp(X˜, a(X˜), µ˜). B For any f L1(X), we define ∈ fdµ ≔ fdµ.˜ ZX ZX˜

op Let π : be a PrbAlgΓ -factor with canonical representationπ ˜. Thenπ ˜ X → Y p p gives rise to a Koopman operatorπ ˜ ∗ : L (Y) L (X) defined by pullback as →

π˜ ∗ f ≔ f π.˜ ◦ In particular, we can use the Koopman operator to identify Lp(Y) with a (closed) subspace of Lp(X). Henceforth, we will make use of these identifications without further notice.

5In [14, §363-366], a direct construction for integration and Lebesgue spaces for measure algebras is provided which is equivalent to our construction via canonical models. 14 A. JAMNESHAN

2.4. Canonical disintegration and relatively independent products. A main advantage of the canonical model is that it yields a canonical disintegration of measures from which in turn several key basic measure-theoretic concepts can be defined. Canonical disintegration of measures relies on an important property which we coined the strong Lusin property in [29] (a property well known in the literature, though under different names and guise). It implies that we have a

CC∗Alg-isomorphism

(1) L∞(X) C(X˜) ≡ for any PrbAlg-algebra (X, µ) with Stone space X˜. The strong Lusin property implies the following disintegration result.

Theorem 2.6 (Canonical disintegration). [29, §8] Let = (X, µ, T) and = X Y (Y, ν, S ) be PrbAlgop-systems and π: be a PrbAlgop-factor. Then there is Γ X → Y Γ a unique Radon probability measure µ on X˜ for each y Y˜ which depends con- y ∈ tinuously on y in the vague topology in the sense that y f dµ is continuous 7→ X˜ y for every f C(X˜), and such that R ∈

(2) f π˜ ∗gdµ˜ = f dµy gdν˜ ZX˜ ZY˜ ZX˜ ! for all f C(X˜),g C(Y˜). Furthermore, for each y Y,˜ µy is supported on the ∈ 1 ∈ ∈ compact set π˜ − ( y ), in the sense that µy(E) = 0 whenever E is a measurable set 1{ } 1 disjoint from π˜ − ( y ) (this conclusion does not require the fibers π˜ − ( y ) to be { } { } measurable). Moreover, we have

γ (3) µS˜ γ(y) = T˜ µy ∗ for all y Y˜ and γ Γ. ∈ ∈ We can apply the canonical disintegration to construct relatively independent op products in the dynamical category PrbAlgΓ (cf. [12, §2]).

Theorem 2.7 (Relative products in PrbAlgop). [29, §8] Let = (X , µ , T ), Γ X1 1 1 1 = (X , µ , T ) and = (Y, ν, S ) be PrbAlgop-systems. Suppose that one has X2 2 2 2 Y Γ PrbAlgop-factors π : , π : . Then there exists a PrbAlgop- Γ 1 X1 → Y 2 X2 → Y Γ commutative diagram

1 2 X ×Y X Π1 Π2

X1 X2

π1 π2

Y AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 15

op op for some PrbAlgΓ -system 1 2 = (X1 Y X2, µ Y µ, T T) and PrbAlgΓ - X ×Y X × × × morphisms Π1 : 1 2 1, Π2 : 1 2 2 such that one has X ×Y X →X X ×Y X →X

(4) f1 f2dµ Y µ = E( f1 Y)E( f2 Y)dν ZX1 Y X2 × ZY | | × for all f L∞(X ), f L∞(X ), where we embed L∞(Y) into L∞(X ), L∞(X ), 1 ∈ 1 2 ∈ 2 1 2 and embed these algebras in turn into L∞(X X ). Furthermore, the Bool - 1 ×Y 2 σ algebra of X X is generated by the Bool -algebras X ,X (where we identify ×Y σ 1 2 the latter with σ-complete subalgebras of the former in the obvious way).

2.5. The invariant factor functor and the Alaoglu-Birkhoff ergodic theorem. Since we assume no structure on Γ other than it being a group, the only ergodic theorem available to us is the Alaoglu-Birkhoff ergodic theorem. We first intro- op duce the contravariant functor InvΓ on PrbAlgΓ :

Definition 2.8 (Invariant factor functor). (i) If = (X, µ, T)isa PrbAlgop-system, we define X Γ

InvΓ( ) = (InvΓ(X), µInv , TInv ) X Γ(X) Γ(X) op to be the PrbAlgΓ -system with AbsMbl-space

γ InvΓ(X) ≔ E X : T (E) = E for all γ Γ , { ∈ ∈ } measure

µInvΓ(X)(E):= µ(E) for all E X, and action defined by ∈ T γ (E) ≔ T γ(E) InvΓ(X)

for all E InvΓ(X) and γ Γ. ∈ ∈ op (ii) If f : is a PrbAlg -factor, we define InvΓ( f ): InvΓ( ) X → Y Γ X → InvΓ( ) by Y InvΓ( f )(E):= f (E)

whenever E InvΓ(Y). op ∈ (iii) A PrbAlg -system is said to be ergodic if InvΓ(X) is the trivial alge- Γ X bra 0, 1 . { } op There is a natural projection from the identity functor on PrbAlgΓ to InvΓ op that gives a PrbAlgΓ -factor π: InvΓ( ) defined by inclusion. Using this 2 X → X 2 γ factor, one can view L (InvΓ(X)) as a subspace of L (X). Each shift T : X X γ 2 2 0→ induces a unitary Koopman operator (T )∗ : L (X) L (X). For any f L (X), γ → ∈ we denote by OrbΓ( f ) the orbit (T )∗ f : γ Γ of f . { ∈ } 16 A. JAMNESHAN

Theorem 2.9 (Alaoglu-Birkhoff abstract ergodic theorem). [1] Let = (X, µ, T) X op E 2 2 be a PrbAlgΓ -system and ( InvΓ(X)): L (X) L (InvΓ(X)) be the orthogo- ·| 2 → nal projection. Then for any f L (X), E( f InvΓ(X)) is the unique element of ∈ | minimal norm in the closed convex hull of OrbΓ( f ).

3. Conditional Hilbert spaces and Hilbert-Schmidt operators In this section, we develop some conditional analysis which is used in Section 4 to study compact extensions. Specifically, we introduce a conditional Hilbert space and its conditional tensor product and establish some useful properties of them. We do not aim to give the most general and systematic treatment of condi- tional Hilbert space theory, but present, in a self-contained manner, the minimal amount of that theory needed, directed towards its application to the study of op extensions of PrbAlgΓ -systems. In several remarks, we discuss and provide ref- erences how to interpret the results in Boolean sheaf topoi, which are addressed to the reader with familiarity to basic topos theory and categorical logic. The ergodic-theoretically inclined reader, can view the theory of conditional Hilbert spaces as a natural extension of the theory of measurable Hilbert bundles (e.g., see [17, §9] and [16, §6]) in situations where separability and countability hy- potheses are not satisfied. We do not assume any dynamic structure in this section and fix a PrbAlgop- morphism π : (X, µ) (Y,ν) throughout. Recall that we have correspond- →0 0 2 2 ing embeddings π∗ : L (Y) L (X) and π∗ : L (Y) L (X) defined by → → π∗( f ) = f π˜ respectively whereπ ˜ : X˜ Y˜ is the canonical representation. ◦ 0 → 0 0 We identify L (Y) with the closed subspace π∗(L (Y)) of L (X) (with respect 2 2 to convergence in probability) and L (Y) with the closed subspace π∗(L (Y)) 2 of L (X). We also identify a(Y˜) with the sub-σ-algebraπ ˜ ∗( a(Y˜)) of a(X˜). B B B Throughout, all equalities, inequalities and inclusions between measurable func- tions and measurable sets are understood in the almost sure sense. We have the canonical disintegration (µy)y Y˜ of µ over Y. This leads to the relatively indepen- ∈ dent product (X X, µ µ). We can use the canonical PrbAlgop-morphism ×Y ×Y ψ : (X X, µ µ) (Y,ν) to identify L0(Y) with a subspace of L0(X X), ×Y ×Y → ×Y and similarly for the respective L2 spaces. A partition of X˜ is called a Y-partition if its elements are measurable sets P 0 in a(Y˜) . Let be a Y-partition and fE L (X) for each E . Then there is B P0 ∈ ∈ P a unique f L (X) such that f 1E = fE1E for all E . We denote this unique ∈ ∈ P 0 element f by E fE1E and call it a Y-countable concatenation in L (X). Simi- ∈P larly, we definePY-countable concatenations in L0(X X). We will be interested ×Y AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 17 in subspaces of L0(X) and L0(X X) which are closed under Y-countable con- ×Y catenations. More specifically, these subspaces are a conditional version of the classical L2 space and its conditional Hilbert space tensor product which are de- fined as follows.

Definition 3.1. We define the conditional Hilbert space

2 0 2 2 L (X Y) ≔ f L (X): E( f Y) = f dµy < | ( ∈ | | | ZX˜ | | ∞) and the conditional Hilbert-Schmidt space

0 2 2 HS(X Y) ≔ K L (X Y X): E( K Y) = K dµy µy < . | ( ∈ × | | | ZX˜ X˜ | | × ∞) × One easily verifies that L2(X Y) = f L0(X): g L0(Y), h L2(X) s.t. f = gh , | { ∈ ∃ ∈ ∈ } HS(X Y) = f L0(X X): g L0(Y), h L2(X X) s.t. f = gh . | { ∈ ×Y ∃ ∈ ∈ ×Y } In particular, both L2(X Y) and HS(X Y) are modules over the ring L0(Y) closed | | under Y-countable concatenations.

Remark 3.2. In [40, §2.13], the same notation L2(X Y) is used for the smaller | L∞(Y)-module f L2(X): E( f 2 Y) < . ∈ k | | | kL∞(Y) ∞ The crucial differencen between the smaller conditional Hilberto space in [40] and our larger conditional Hilbert space L2(X Y) is that the latter is closed under Y- | countable concatenations. It is exactly this property that makes L2(X Y) amenable | to topos-theoretic tools, see the following Remark 3.5.

We define a conditional version of inner product and norm:

Definition 3.3. For f, g L2(X Y), we define their conditional inner product as ∈ | (5) f, g L2(X Y) ≔ E( f g¯ Y). h i | | For f L2(X Y), we define its conditional norm as ∈ |

(6) f L2(X Y) ≔ f, f L2(X Y). k k | qh i | 2 The conditional norm L2(X Y) induces a probabilistic metric on L (X Y) by k·k | |

dL2(X Y)( f, g) ≔ min(1, f g L2(X Y))dν. | ZY k − k |

Similarly, we define , HS(X Y), HS(X Y), and dHS(X Y). h· ·i | k·k | | We verify some basic properties.

Proposition 3.4. 18 A. JAMNESHAN

(i) The conditional inner product , L2(X Y) satisfies the following proper- h· ·i | ties. 2 (a) For all Y-partitions , ′ and families ( fE)E , ( fE )E in L (X Y), P P ∈P ′ ′∈P′ | we have

fE1E, fE 1E L2(X Y) = fE, fE L2(X Y)1E E . h ′ ′ i | h ′ i | ∩ ′ XE EX E EX ∈P ′∈P′ ∩ ′∈P∩P′ 2 (b) For all f, g L (X Y), it holds that f, g L2(X Y) = g, f L2(X Y). ∈ | h i | h i | (c) For all f, g, h L2(X Y) and a L0(Y), it holds that ∈ | ∈ af + g, h L2(X Y) = a f, h L2(X Y) + g, h L2(X Y). h i | h i | h i | 2 (d) For all f L (X Y), it holds that f, f L2(X Y) 0. ∈ | h i | ≥ Similarly, for , HS(X Y). h· ·i | (ii) The conditional norm L2(X Y) satisfies the following properties. | k·k 2 (a) For all Y-partitions and families ( fE)E in L (X Y), we have ∈P | fE1E L2(X Y) = fE L2(X Y)1E. k k | k k | XE XE ∈P ∈P (b) f L2(X Y) = 0 if and only if f = 0. | k k 0 2 (c) For every a L (Y) and f L (X Y), we have af L2(X Y) = a f L2(X Y). | | ∈ 2 ∈ | k k | |k k (d) For all f, g L (X Y), we have f + g L2(X Y) f L2(X Y) + g L2(X Y). ∈ | k k | ≤k k | k k | Similarly, for HS(X Y). k·k | (iii) (Conditional Cauchy-Schwarz inequality) For all f, g L2(X Y), it holds ∈ | that

(7) f, g L2(X Y) f L2(X Y) g L2(X Y). |h i | |≤k k | k k | Similarly, for HS(X Y). | (iv) The space n = c f g : n N, c C, f , g L2(X Y) , D  i i ⊗ i ∈ i ∈ i i ∈ |  Xi=1    where f g(x, x′) ≔ f (x)g(x′), is dense in HS(X Y) with respect to the ⊗ | metric dHS(X Y). | (v) For any K HS(X Y) and f L2(X Y), define ∈ | ∈ | K Y f (x) ≔ K(x, ), f¯ L2(X Y)(˜π(x)). ∗ h · i | The mapping f K f is well-defined from L2(X Y) to L2(X Y). In 7→ ∗Y | | particular, it holds

(8) K Y f L2(X Y) K HS(X Y) f L2(X Y) k ∗ k | ≤k k | k k | for all K HS(X Y) and f L2(X Y). In particular, f K f is contin- ∈ | ∈ | 7→ ∗Y uous with respect to dL2(X Y). | AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 19

(vi) Convergence in L2(X) with respect to the L2-metric is equivalent to con- 2 vergence with respect to dL2(X Y). Similarly for L (X Y X). | 2 × (vii) The space L∞(X) is dense in L (X Y) with respect to dL2(X Y). A similar | | property holds for HS(X Y). | Proof. The assertions in (i) and (ii) follow by standard properties of conditional expectations. As for (iii), we follow the proof of the classical Cauchy-Schwarz inequal- ity with some necessary modifications. First suppose that f, g L2(X Y) satisfy 0 ∈ | f L2(X Y), g L2(X Y), f ag L2(X Y) > 0 for all a L (Y). Then we have k k | k k | k − k | ∈ 2 2 0 < f ag L2(X Y) = f L2(X Y) a f, g L2(X Y) a¯ f, g L2(X Y) + aa¯ g L2(X Y) k − k | k k | − h i | − h i | k k | for all a L0(Y). Setting ∈ 2 f, g L2(X Y) = | a 2|h i | f f, f 2 ′ L2(X Y) ′ L (X Y) k k | h i | and after some elementary algebraic manipulations, we obtain (7) in this case. 2 Second suppose that f, g L (X Y) satisfy only f L2(X Y), g L2(X Y) > 0. Let ∈ | k k | k k | = E a(Y˜): a L0(Y), f = ag on E . E { ∈B ∃ ∈ }

By completeness of Y (see Remark 2.2), there exists a least upper bound Emax for (with respect to almost sure inclusion). By the countable chain condition, there E is ′ countable such that E = ′. We can assume that ′ is a Y-partition E ⊂E max E E of E . Choose a L0(Y) such that aS= a on E with a such that f = a g for all max ∈ E E E E ′. Then f = ag on Emax. It holds that f L2(X Y), g L2(X Y), f ag L2(X Y) > 0 | | | ∈Ec 0 k k c k k k − k on Emax for all a L (Y). Thus (7) is satisfied on Emax by repeating the first step c ∈ on Emax. Since (7) is also trivially satisfied on Emax, we obtain (7) also in this case.

Finally suppose that f L2(X Y) or g L2(X Y) are equal to 0 on a set of positive | | k k k k c measure. Let E = f L2(X Y) = 0 g L2(X Y) = 0 . Then (7) is satisfied on E {k k | }∪{k k | } by repeating the second step on Ec. Since (7) is also trivially satisfied on E, we obtain (7) also in this case, and this completes the proof of (iii). It is enough to prove (iv) for f HS(X Y) with f 0. By the Stone-Weierstraß ∈ | ≥ theorem, the algebra of finite disjoint unions of rectangles E F with E, F × ∈ a(X˜) generates a(X˜ X˜). Hence there is a sequence (K )in such that K K B B × n D n ↑ µ˜ Y˜ µ˜-almost surely as n . By monotone convergence, Kn K HS(X Y) 0 × →∞ k − k | → ν˜-almost surely. Hence Kn K HS(X Y) 0 in convergence inν ˜-measure, and k − k | → this proves (iv). 20 A. JAMNESHAN

As for (v), let K HS(X Y) and f L2(X Y). By the conditional Cauchy- ∈ | ∈ | Schwarz inequality and the Fubini-Tonelli theorem, one obtains

2 2 K Y f (x)dµy(x) = K(x, ), f¯ L2(X Y)(˜π(x)) dµy(x) ZX˜ | ∗ | ZX˜ h · i |

2 2 f L2(X Y) K(x, ) L2(X Y)(˜π(x))dµy(x) ≤k k | ZX˜ k · k | 2 2 = K HS(X Y) f L2(X Y) < k k | k k | ∞ This shows that K f L2(X Y), (8) and continuity. ∗Y ∈ | As for (vi), we only prove the claim for L2(X Y) (the arguments for HS(X Y) | | are identical). For f L2(X), it holds ∈

(9) fdµ˜ = fdµydν.˜ ZX˜ ZY˜ ZX˜ In particular, we have

2 2 (10) f L2(X) = f L2(X Y)dν. k k ZY k k | The assertion follows from the fact that convergence in L2 is equivalent to con- vergence in measure. 2 Finally as for (vii), let f L (X Y). Define fm = f 1 f 2 m for m 1. Then k kL (X Y)≤ ∈ | 2 | ≥ dL2(X Y)( f, fm) 0 as m . By (ii) and (9), fm L (X). As L∞(X) is dense in | 2 2 → → ∞ ∈ L (X) in L -topology, we can approximate each fm by a sequence ( fm,n) in L∞(X) in L2-metric. The claim now follows from (9), (vi), and triangle inequality. 

Remark 3.5. Let Sh(Y) be the Grothendieck topos of sheaves on the site (Y, J) where J is the Grothendieck sup-topology on the complete Boolean algebra Y. We refer the interested reader to [34] for an introduction to Grothendieck sheaf topoi. By the countable chain condition (see Remark 2.2), a Grothendieck ba- sis of the sup-topology J is given by the sets of countable partitions of ele- ments of Y. Since the spaces L0(Y), L2(X Y), HS(X Y) are closed under countable | | Y-concatenations, they can be given the structure of a sheaf on the site (Y, J). Since Y is a complete Boolean algebra, the topos Sh(Y) is Boolean and satisfies the axiom of choice. Thus its internal logic is strong enough to permit an inter- nal mathematical discourse sufficient for the bulk of classical mathematics, see [34, Chatper IV]. In particular, we can interpret the external space L0(Y) as the internal complex numbers of Sh(Y). Now Proposition 3.4 shows that the external space L2(X Y) can be interpreted as an internal complex Hilbert space, and the ex- | ternal space HS(X Y) as its internal Hilbert space tensor product whose elements | represent the internal Hilbert-Schmidt operators. Externally L0(Y) is a commuta- tive ring and L2(X Y) and HS(X Y) are topological modules over L0(Y) (given the | | topology induced by dL2(X Y), dHS(X Y) and convergence in probability). | | AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 21

The conditional analysis of this section is an external interpretation and sig- nificant simplification of some results in the internal Hilbert space theory of Sh(Y). For example, Proposition 3.4(iv) and (v) essentially describe the Sh(Y)- spectral theorem of Sh(Y)-Hilbert-Schmidt operators. This interpretation is en- abled by conditional set theory6 and conditional analysis as developed in [13, 5, 8], which, initially, were developed independently of topos theory and can be viewed in retrospect as an exploration of the semantics of the internal discourse of Boolean Grothendieck topoi.

We continue to develop some basic conditional analysis of the conditional Hilbert space L2(X Y). | Definition 3.6. An L0(Y)-linear combination in L2(X Y) is an expression of the 2 | 0 form f a f f for some finite set in L (X Y) and a f L (Y), f . A subset ∈F F | ∈ ∈F PL2(X Y) is called a finitely generated L0(Y)-submodule if there is a finite M ⊂ | 2 collection in L (X Y) such that each f can be expressed as f a f f for ∈F F 0 | ∈ M some (a f ) f in L (Y). P ∈F Proposition 3.7 (Conditional Gram-Schmidt process). Let be a finitely gen- M erated L0(Y)-submodule of L2(X Y). Then there is a finite Y-partition and for | P each E there is a finite set in L2(X Y) satisfying the following properties. ∈P FE | (i) There is E such that = 0 . 0 ∈P FE0 { } (ii) f L2(X Y) = 1 on E forall f E and E E0 . k k | ∈F ∈ P\{ } (iii) f, g L2(X Y) = 0 on E for all distinct f, g E and E . h i | ∈F ∈P (iv) It holds that

= E 0 = E  fE1E : E (a f ) f E L (Y) s.t. fE a f f  . M  ∀ ∈ P ∃ ∈F ⊂  XE fXE   ∈P ∈F    We call cdim( ) = E #( E) E the conditional dimension of , where # de- M ∈P F | M notes cardinality (noteP that cdim( ) is a a(Y˜)-measurable random variable). M B Proof. Let f ,..., f L2(X Y) be a collection of generators of . Define 1 n ∈ | M f h = 1 1 . 1 f1 L2(X Y)>0 f1 L2(X Y) k k | k k | Next suppose we defined h ,..., h with k n 1. Set 1 k ≤ − k

gk+1 = fk+1 fk+1, hi L2(X Y)hi − h i | Xi=1

6The connection of conditional set theory to Boolean Grothendieck topoi is established in [25], see also [4] for a relation to the akin theory of Boolean-valued models. 22 A. JAMNESHAN and define gk+1 h + = 1 . k 1 gk+1 L2(X Y)>0 gk+1 L2(X Y) k k | k k | c Denote by Fi = gi L2(X Y) > 0 and Fi+n = Fi for all i = 1,..., n. Form all finite {k k | } intersections F F ... F with 1 i < i < ... < i 2n for some i1 ∩ i2 ∩ ∩ ik ≤ 1 2 k ≤ 1 k 2n. Let denote the set of all such finite intersections whose measure ≤ ≤ P0 is positive. Then forms a Y-partition. For E = F F ... F , let P0 i1 ∩ i2 ∩ ∩ ik ∈ P0 E = hi j : i j n, j = 1,..., k . Let consists of those E 0 such that E F { ≤ } c P ∈ P F is not empty. Set E0 = ( E E) . By construction, , ( E)E and E0 satisfy ∈P P F ∈P properties (i)-(iv). S 

Lemma 3.8. Let be a finitely generated L0(Y)-submodule of L2(X Y). Then M | M is closed with respect to the metric dL2(X Y). |

Proof. Let and ( E)E satisfy properties (i)-(iv) in Lemma 3.7 for . Let ( fn) ∈P P F M 2 be a sequence in such that dL2(X Y)( fn, f ) 0 as n for some f L (X Y). M | → →∞ ∈ | Each fn is of the form

n fn = a fE E  fE  | XE  fXE E  ∈P  ∈F  n   for some (a ) f E for each E . For arbitrary n, m, by Proposition 3.4(ii) and fE ∈F ∈P Proposition 3.7(ii) & (iii),

n m (11) fn fm L2(X Y) = a f a f E. k − k |  | E − E | | XE  fXE E  ∈P  ∈F    Since dL2(X Y)( fn, fm) 0 as n, m by hypothesis, the claim follows by | → → ∞ applying [31, Lemma 4.6] to (11). 

4. Compact extensions In this section, we establish various characterizations of compact extensions op of PrbAlgΓ -systems which are collected in

Theorem 4.1. Let = (X, µ, T) and = (Y, ν, S ) be PrbAlgop-systems and X Y Γ π : be a PrbAlgop-extension. Then the following are equivalent. X → Y Γ 2 (i) The conditional Hilbert space L (X Y) is the dL2(X Y)-closure of | | K f : K HS(X Y) Γ-invariant, f L2(X Y) . { ∗Y ∈ | ∈ | } 2 (ii) The conditional Hilbert space L (X Y) is the dL2(X Y)-closure of the union | | of all its finitely generated and Γ-invariant L0(Y)-submodules. AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 23

(iii) There exists a dense set with respect to the metric dL2(X Y) such that for G | all f and every ε > 0 there is a finite set in L2(X Y) such that for ∈ G F | all γ Γ, ∈ γ min (T )∗ f g L2(X Y) < ε. g | ∈F k − k (i)’ The classical Hilbert space L2(X) is the L2-closure of

2 K f : K L∞(X X) Γ-invariant, f L (X) . { ∗Y ∈ ×Y ∈ } (ii)’ The classical Hilbert space L2(X) is the L2-closure of the union of all its

closed, Γ-invariant, and finitely generated L∞(Y)-submodules. (iii)’ There exists a dense set in L2(X) such that for all f and every H ∈ H ε > 0 there is a finite set in L2(X) such that for all γ Γ, F ∈ γ min (T )∗ f g L2(X Y) < ε. g | ∈F k − k op A PrbAlgΓ -morphism π fulfilling one (and therefore all) of the above six prop- op erties is called a PrbAlgΓ -compact extension.

Remark 4.2. Property (ii)’ is used by Zimmer in [43, 44] under the name of “relatively discrete spectrum”. Ellis [12] used a variant of property (ii)’ to gener- alize some parts of Zimmer’s work, see Section 5. Properties (i)’ and (iii)’ appear in Furstenberg [16, §6]. We prove that (i)’, (ii)’ and (iii)’ are equivalent and re- late them to their analogues in the larger conditional Hilbert spaces L2(X Y) and | HS(X Y). Our proof of Theorem 4.1 combines ideas from the countable theory as | in [16, §6] with the conditional analysis developed in Section 3.

Remark 4.3. Using conditional integration theory as developed in [26] (in par- ticular, a conditional version of the Carathéodory extension theorem and the re- sults in [26, §4]), one can construct, in a slightly tedious process, an internal Sh(Y)-system from an external extension π : . Then the properties (i)- X → Y (iii) in Theorem 4.1 characterizing compact extensions or systems of relative dis- crete spectrum can be viewed as an external interpretation of characterizations of internal compact systems or internal systems of discrete spectrum.

We divide the proof of Theorem 4.1 in several lemmas.

Lemma 4.4. Assertion (i) implies assertion (ii) in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. Let K HS(X Y) be Γ-invariant. We want to show that the range K f : ∈ | { ∗Y f L2(X Y) is Γ-invariant, that is ∈ | } γ γ (12) (T˜ )∗(K f ) = K ((T )∗ f ) ∗Y ∗Y 24 A. JAMNESHAN for all γ Γ and f L2(X Y). Indeed, we have ∈ ∈ |

γ γ (T˜ )∗(K Y f ) = (T˜ )∗ K(x, x′) f (x′)dµπ˜(x) ∗ ZX˜ !

γ = K(T˜ (x), x′) f (x′)dµπ˜(T˜ γ(x)) ZX˜ ˜ γ = K(T (x), x′) f (x′)dµS˜ γ(˜π(x)) ZX˜ γ γ = K(T˜ (x), x′) f (x′)dT˜ µπ˜(x) ZX˜ ∗ γ γ γ = K(T˜ (x), T˜ (x′)) f (T˜ (x′))dµπ˜(x) ZX˜ γ = K(x, x′) f (T˜ (x′))dµπ˜(x) ZX˜ γ = K ((T )∗ f ) ∗Y

By assumption, for every f L2(X Y) there are ( f ) in L2(X Y) and Γ-invariant ∈ | n | (Kn) in HS(X Y) such that dL2(X Y)(Kn Y fn, f ) 0 as n . By Proposition | | ∗ → → ∞ 3.4(iv), for each n there is (K ) in (see 3.4(iv) for the definition of ) such n,m D D that dHS(X Y)(K, Kn,m) 0 as m . We can choose the Kn,m to be Γ-invariant. | → → ∞ Moreover, by (8), we have

Kn,m Y fn Kn Y fn L2(X Y) Kn,m Kn HS(X Y) fn L2(X Y) k ∗ − ∗ k | ≤k − k | k k | for all n, m. Thus by triangle inequality, we conclude that dL2(X Y)(Kn,n Y fn, f ) 0 | ∗ → as n . Since the range K f : f L2(X Y) is L0(Y)-finitely generated → ∞ { n,n ∗Y ∈ | } and by (12), (ii) follows. 

Lemma 4.5. Assertion (ii) implies assertion (iii) in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. Let A be the union of finitely generated and Γ-invariant L0(Y)-submodules and let = f A : M > 0 s.t. f L2(X Y) < M . By assumption and Lemma | G { ∈ 2 ∃ k k } 3.8, is dense in L (X Y) with respect to the metric dL2(X Y). G | | Fix f and ε > 0. Then there is a finitely generated and Γ-invariant ∈ G L0(Y)-submodule such that f . By Proposition 3.7, there are a finite Y- M ∈ M partition and for each E a finite family such that for all f we P ∈ P FE ∈ M = = 0 have the representation f E fE1E where fE g E agg is an L (Y)-linear ∈P ∈F γ γ combination for each E P. Since (T )∗ f L2(X Y) =P(S )∗ f L2(X Y) < M for all ∈ P k k | k k | γ Γ, the orbit OrbΓ( f ) is bounded with respect to the conditional norm L2(X Y). ∈ k·k | AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 25

It follows from Proposition 3.4(ii) and Proposition 3.7 that for all h OrbΓ( f ) ∈ h L2(X Y) = hE1E L2(X Y) = hE L2(X Y)1E k k | k k | k k | XE XE ∈P ∈P 1/2 = ah 2 1 < M.  | g|  E XE gXE  ∈P  ∈F  E  E #( E ) #( E ) For each E choose c ,..., c C F such that the closed ball in C F ∈ P 1 jE ∈ with radius M and center the origin is covered by the union of the open balls E E of radius ε and center ck , k = 1,..., jE. Denote by Ck the constant measurable 0 #( E ) E E vector in L (Y) F with value ck . For f E, let Ck ( f ) denote a component of E ∈F the vector Ck . Put

E E =  Ck ( f ) f : k = 1,..., jE L    fXE   ∈F    and define   = g E : g each E . L  E| E ∈LE ∈P XE   ∈P  Clearly, is finite and by construction, it holds that  L   min g f L2(X Y) < ε. g | ∈L k − k 

Remark 4.6. The idea of the previousproof is a conditional version of the Heine- Borel theorem (see [8, Theorem 4.6]) or the internal Heine-Borel theorem of Sh(Y).

Lemma 4.7. Assertion (i) is equivalent to assertion (i)’ in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. The equivalence is a consequence of Proposition 3.4 (v)-(vii). 

Lemma 4.8. Assertion (ii) is equivalent to assertion (ii)’ in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. We first show that (ii) implies (ii)’. Let be an finitely generated and M Γ-invariant L0(Y)-submodule of L2(X Y). For choose a finite Y-partition and | M P for each E a finite set satisfying the properties in Proposition 3.7. Let ∈P FE = g E : g each E . L  E| E ∈FE ∈P XE   ∈P    By property (ii) in Proposition 3.7, g L2(X Y) 1 for eachg . Thus by (10), | k k ≤ ∈ L 2 g 2 1 for all g . Let ′ be the L∞(Y)-submodule of L (X) generated k kL (X) ≤ ∈ L M by . Then ′ is Γ-invariant since is Γ-invariant, and by Proposition 3.4(vi), L M2 M ′ is also L -closed. It remains to show that the union of all ′, where is a M M M 26 A. JAMNESHAN

finitely generated and Γ-invariant L0(Y)-submodule of L2(X Y), is dense in L2(X). | But this follows from Proposition 3.4(v) and (vii).

Let us show that (ii)’ implies (ii). Let ′ be an L∞(Y)-finitely generated, Γ- M invariant and closed submodule of L2(X). Let be a finite set of generators of 0 L ′. Let = g agg : ag L (Y) g . By construction and Proposition M M { ∈L ∈ ∀ ∈ L} 3.4(ii), is a finitelyP generated and Γ-invariant L0(Y)-submodule of L2(X Y). By M | Proposition 3.4(vii), the union of all such is dense in L2(X Y) with respect to M | dL2(X Y).  | Lemma 4.9. Assertion (iii) is equivalent to assertion (iii)’ in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. Let be dense set in L2(X Y) satisfying the property in (iii). Let f S | ∈ S and M > 0. By Proposition 3.4(ii), f 1 is also an element of . Then f L2(X Y) M k k | ≤ S = f 1 : f , M > 0 is a subset of L2(X) by Proposition 3.4(v) f L2(X Y) M R { k k | ≤ ∈ S } and dense in L2(X Y). Now (iii)’ follows from Proposition 3.4(vi). The converse | direction is an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.4(vii). 

We conclude the proof of Theorem 4.1 by establishing:

Lemma 4.10. Assertion (iii)’ implies assertion (i)’ in Theorem 4.1.

Proof. We show that if f is orthogonal to all functions of the form K g ∈ R ∗Y where K ranges over Γ-invariant functions in L∞(X X) and g ranges over ×Y L2(X), then f = 0. Let K be the unique element of minimal norm in the closed 2 convex hull of OrbΓ( f f¯) in L (X X) which is Γ-invariant by Theorem 2.9. ⊗ ×Y Set KM = K1 K M for M 0. By hypothesis, f is orthogonal to KM Y f . We can | |≤ ≥ ∗ rewrite this, using the disintegration (µy)y Y˜ ofµ ˜, as ∈

0 = f (x) KM(x, x′) f¯(x′)dµπ˜(x)(x′) dµ˜(x) ZX˜ ZX˜ !

= f (x) KM (x, x′) f¯(x′)dµy(x′) dµy(x)dν˜(y) ZY˜ ZX˜ ZX˜ ! ¯ = f f KMdµ˜ Y˜ µ.˜ ZX˜ X˜ ⊗ × × 2 γ γ Thus f f¯ is orthogonal to K in L (X X). As K is Γ-invariant, (T T )∗ f f¯ ⊗ M ×Y M × ⊗ is orthogonal to K for all γ Γ as well. Thus K must be orthogonal to all K M ∈ M which implies that K = 0 for all M 0, and therefore also K = 0. M ≥ Now choose a finite set such that the property in (iii)’ is satisfied for f F and an arbitrary ε > 0. Let (K ) be a sequence in the convex hull of OrbΓ( f n ⊗ ¯ 2 f ) such that lim Kn L (X Y X) 0. By Cauchy-Schwarz, we also have Kn, g k k × → h ⊗ 2 g¯ L (X Y X) 0 for all g . Expanding the inner product and choosing n large i × → ∈ F AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 27 enough, we can always obtain a γ Γ such that ∈ γ (T )∗ f, g L2(X Y) L2(Y) kh i | k Xg ∈F is arbitrary small. Thus for any δ > 0 wecanfind aset E a(Y˜)withν ˜(Ec) < δ ∈B such that γ (T )∗ f, g L2(X Y) <ε on E |h i | | for all g for some γ. By (iii)’, we also have for all γ Γ ∈F ∈ γ min (T )∗ f g L2(X Y) < ε. g | ∈F k − k By triangle inequality,

γ f L2(X Y)1T γ(E) = (T )∗ f L2(X Y)1E < 3ε k k | − k k | for some γ. Since ε, δ were chosen arbitrarily it follows that f = 0, and this finishes the proof of Theorem 4.1. 

5. The uncountable Mackey-Zimmer theorem and isometric extensions Under the hypothesis of ergodicity, compact extensions are isomorphic to ho- mogeneous skew-product extensions. This characterization is a relative version of the Halmos-von Neumann theorem (proved for Z-actions by Halmos and von Neumann [23], then generalized by Mackey [33] to second-countable locally compact group actions, see [11, Theorem 17.5] for an uncountable Halmos-von Neumann theorem for ergodic Markov semi-group actions). The relative version of the Halmos-von Neumann theorem was obtained by Zimmer [43] for actions of second-countable locally compact groups on standard Borel spaces. In this section, we extend Zimmer’s theorem to system of uncountable complexity. The key ingredient in the proof is the Mackey-Zimmer theorem classifying ergodic homogeneous extensions. We use the uncountable Mackey-Zimmer theorem [28] established by Tao and the author. We point out that similar results to the ones in this section were obtained by Ellis [12, §5], though with different methods. In short, the methods of [12] rely on topological dynamics and the theory of Banach bundles of spaces of continuous functions which is akin to the methods used in [9], whereas our methods are ergodic-theoretic and based off measure theory and topos theory. We start by recalling the uncountable Mackey-Zimmer theorem [28]. Let K be a compact Hausdorff group and (Y,ν) a PrbAlgop-space. We denote by Cond (K) the set of all AbsMbl-morphisms from Y to a(K). Let Cond] (K) de- Y B Y note the set of continuous functions from Y˜ to K. It is a remarkable property of 28 A. JAMNESHAN the canonical model that we have the isomorphism

(13) Cond (K) Cond] (K) Y ≡ Y ] of sets, see [29, Proposition 7.9] for a proof. The set CondT (K) has the structure of a group defining the group law in a pointwise way. Therefore, also CondY (K) op has a group structure. We introduce PrbAlgΓ -cocycles, homogeneous skew- products and extensions.

Definition 5.1. Let = (Y, ν, S )bea PrbAlgop-system, K a compact Hausdorff Y Γ group, and L K a closed subgroup. ≤ op (i) A K-valued PrbAlgΓ -cocycle is a family ρ = (ργ)γ Γ of elements ργ op ∈ ∈ CondY (K) satisfying the PrbAlgΓ -cocycle property

ρ = (ρ S γ′ )ρ γγ′ γ ◦ γ′ op for all γ,γ′ Γ. Any K-valued PrbAlgΓ -cocycle ρ = (ργ)γ Γ has a ∈ ] ∈ canonical representationρ ˜ = (˜ργ)γ Γ whereρ ˜γ CondY (K) is defined ∈ ∈ by the isomorphism (13) such thatρ ˜ = (˜ργ)γ Γ is a CHPrbΓ-cocycle on ∈ Y˜. op (ii) Let ρ = (ργ)γ Γ be a PrbAlgΓ -cocycle with canonical representation ∈ ρ˜ = (˜ργ)γ Γ. We denote by Y˜ ⋊ρ˜ K/L the CHPrbΓ-homogeneous skew- ∈ product defined by the following data: – The homogeneous space K/L is equipped with Baire σ-algebra and Haar measure. – We equip Y˜ K/L with the product Baire probability measure. × – The CHPrbΓ-action T : Γ Aut(Y˜ K/L) is defined by → × γ γ T (y, kL) = (S y, ρ˜γ(y)kL)

for all (y, kL) Y˜ K/L and γ Γ. ∈ op× ∈ ⋊ We define the PrbAlgΓ -homogeneous skew-product ρ K/L to be the op Y PrbAlgΓ -system

AlgAbs(Y˜ ⋊ρ˜ K/L). op (iii) A PrbAlgΓ -homogeneous extension of by K/L is a tuple ( ,π,θ,ρ) op Y X where = (X, µ, T)isa PrbAlgΓ -system, π : (X, µ, T) (Y, ν, S )isa Xop → PrbAlgΓ -extension, θ CondX(K/L) is a vertical coordinate such that ∈ op π, θ jointly generate the Boolσ-algebra X, and ρ = (ργ)γ Γ is a PrbAlgΓ - ∈ cocycle such that θ T γ = (ρ π)θ ◦ γ ◦ for all γ Γ using the natural action of Cond (K) on Cond (K/L). ∈ X X AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 29

Theorem 5.2 (Uncountable Mackey-Zimmer). [28] Let = (Y, ν, S ) be an op Y ergodic PrbAlgΓ -system and K be a compact Haudorff group. Every ergodic op PrbAlgΓ -homogeneous extension of by K/L for some compact subgroup opX Y op L of K is isomorphic in PrbAlgΓ to a PrbAlgΓ -homogeneous skew-product ⋊ρ H/M for some compact subgroup H of K, some compact subgroup M of H, Y op and some H-valued PrbAlgΓ -cocycle ρ.

We apply the uncountable Mackey-Zimmer theorem to establish a geometric characterization of compact extensions:

op Theorem 5.3. If π : (X, µ, T) (Y, ν, S ) is a PrbAlgΓ -ergodic compact ex- →op tension, then (X, µ, T) is PrbAlgΓ -isomorphic to a homogeneous skew-product extension ⋊ρ H/M for a compact Hausdorff group H, a closed subgroup M of Y op H, and a H-valued PrbAlgΓ -cocycle ρ.

In the proof, we need some properties about cocycles with values in quotient and product spaces which are recorded in the following lemma.

Lemma 5.4. Let A be an index set and for every α A, let Kα be a compact ∈ op Hausdorff group and Lα a closed subgroup of Kα. Let (Y,ν) bea PrbAlg -space. Then the following identities hold:

CondY ( Kα) = CondY (Kα) Yα A Yα A ∈ ∈ CondY ( (Kα/Lα)) = CondY ( Kα/ Lα) Yα A Yα A Yα A ∈ ∈ ∈ Proof. The first identity is proved in [27, Corollary 3.5]. Routine verification shows that (K /L ) K / L α α ≡ α α Yα A Yα A Yα A ∈ ∈ ∈ is a CH-isomorphism. This proves the second identity. 

Proof of Theorem 5.3. Let π : (X, µ, T) (Y, ν, S ) be a PrbAlgop-compact ex- → Γ tension of ergodic systems. Let ( α)α A be the family of all Γ-invariant closed ∈ M 2 2 finitely generated L∞(Y)-submodules of L (X). By Theorem 4.1(ii’), L (X) is the 2 L closure of α A α. Fix α A. Since α is Γ-invariant, the map cdim( α) ∈ M ∈ M M is also Γ-invariantS and by ergodicity cdim( α) dα for some integer dα 1. α α M ≡ α ≥ By Proposition 3.7, we find f1 ,..., fd α such that fi L2(X Y) = 1 for all α | α α ∈ M k k 2 , i = 1,..., dα and fi , f j L (X Y) = 0 whenever i j. In fact, we can choose h i | f α,..., f α such that all f α take values in the unit circle S. For any γ Γ, then 1 dα i ∈ ˜ γ α ˜ γ α ˜ γ α (T )∗ f1 ,..., (T )∗ fd also satisfies (T )∗ fi L2(X Y) = 1 for all i = 1,..., dα and α k k | 30 A. JAMNESHAN

γ α γ α ˜ ˜ 2 , (T )∗ fi , (T )∗ f j L (X Y) = 0 whenever i j. Let h i | aγ ... aγ 11 1dα α . . . Λγ =  . .. .   γ γ  ad 1 ... ad d   α α α  γ  α dα γ γ α where a L∞(Y) is such that f = a (T˜ )∗ f for all i = 1,..., d . i j ∈ i j=1 i j j α We can identify Λα with an element of theP function space L0(X U(d )) of γ → α equivalence classes of U(dα)-valued random variables on X˜, where U(dα) is the α α α group of dα dα unitary matrices. We obtain the identity F = Λγ Fγ where α α × α α γ α γ α α α op F = ( f ,..., f ) and F = ((T˜ )∗ f ,..., (T˜ )∗ f ). Let ρ ≔ ((Λ )∗) which is 1 dα γ 1 dα γ γ U U op an element of CondY ( (dα)). We thus obtain a (dα)-valued PrbAlgΓ -cocycle α α S2dα 1 ρ = (ργ )γ Γ on (Y, ν, S ). Define the AbsMbl-morphism θα : X a( − ) by ∈ 1 α op →B θα ≔ (( F )∗) . √dα α U Now define ρ = (ργ)γ Γ by ργ = (ργ )α A, θ = (θα)α A, K = α A (dα) and ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ L = α A U(dα 1). By Lemma 5.4, θ CondY (K/L) is a verticalQ coordinate ∈ − ∈ op such thatQ π, θ jointly generate the Boolσ-algebra X, and ρ = (ργ)γ Γ is a PrbAlgΓ - ∈ cocycle such that θ T γ = (ρ π)θ. The claim follows from Theorem 5.2.  ◦ γ ◦ op Remark 5.5. Conversely, every (not necessarily ergodic) PrbAlgΓ -homogeneous ⋊ op skew-product ρ K/L is a PrbAlgΓ -compact extension of . Itissufficient to Y op ⋊ Y ⋊ show this for PrbAlgΓ -group skew-products ρ K. Indeed, if ρ K op Y ⋊ Y → Y is a PrbAlgΓ -compact extension, then so is ρ K/L since we have a op ⋊ ⋊ Y → Y PrbAlgΓ -extension ρ K ρ K/L. 2 Y → Y 2 2 Now L (Y ⋊ρ K) is the Hilbert space tensor product of L (Y) and L (K). By the Peter-Weyl theorem, L2(K) is the closure of the union of finite-dimensional K-invariant subspaces. For any g in a finite-dimensional K-invariant subspace of 2 L (K) and f L∞(Y), the tensor f g lies in a Γ-invariant finitely generated ∈ 2 ⊗ L∞(Y)-submodule of L (Y ⋊ρ K). The claim follows from Theorem 4.1.

Remark 5.6. We call ( α)α β in Theorem 1.1 the Furstenberg tower associated Y ≤ to the PrbAlgop-system and call β the length of this tower. If is a PrbAlgop- Γ X X Γ system of countable complexity, then the length of the Furstenberg tower of X must be a countable ordinal since L2(X) is separable. Beleznay and Foreman [3] proved that any countable ordinal can be realized as the length of the Fursten- op berg tower of a PrbAlgΓ -system of countable complexity. By a transfinite re- op op cursion, we can build out of PrbAlgΓ -group skew-products PrbAlgΓ -systems of Furstenberg tower of arbitrary length (cf. Remark 5.5). We leave the details to the interested reader.

Remark 5.7. Austin [2, §4] establishes a relatively ergodic version of Theorem 5.3 for systems of countable complexity. We believe that a significantly heavier AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 31 application of the topos-theoretic machinery may prove an extension of Austin’s results to systems of uncountable complexity. We plan to work out the details of this in future work.

6. Dichotomy

op 2 Given any PrbAlgΓ -system X, it is well known that L (X) is the orthogonal sum of the compact and weakly mixing factors of X, e.g., see Chapter 1.7 of these lecture notes [36] by Peterson. This is an ergodic theoretic manifestation of the dichotomy between structure and randomness. In this section, we establish op a relative or conditional version of this dichotomy for PrbAlgΓ -extensions. Let us first define relatively weakly mixing functions and extensions.

Definition 6.1. Let = (X, µ, T) and = (Y, ν, S ) be PrbAlgop-systems. Let X Y Γ π : be a PrbAlgop-extension. A function f L2(X) with E( f Y) = 0 is X → Y Γ ∈ | said to be relatively weakly mixing if for all ε > 0 there exists γ Γ such that ∈ γ (T )∗ f, f L2(X Y) L2(Y) < ε. kh i | k Moreover, we say that is a PrbAlgop-relatively mixing extension of if all X Γ Y f L2(X) with E( f Y) = 0 are relatively weakly mixing. Finally, we denote by ∈ | 2 WMX Y the subspace of all relatively mixing functions in L (X). | 2 We denote by APX Y the L closure of all Γ-invariant finitely generated L∞(Y)- | submodules of L2(X). The relative or conditional version of the classical di- chotomy between the compact and weakly mixing parts of a system is

2 (14) L (X) = APX Y WMX Y | ⊕ | where the sum is in the sense of the Hilbert space L2(X). This relative dichotomy is well understood for systems of countable measure-theoretic complexity, e.g., see [40, §2.14] for an exposition in the case of Z-actions. We extend it to systems of uncountable complexity:

Theorem 6.2 (Relative dichotomy). Let = (X, µ, T) and = (Y, ν, S ) be X Y PrbAlgop-systems. Let π : (X, µ, T) (Y, ν, S ) be a PrbAlgop-extension. Exactly Γ → Γ one of the following statements is true. op (i) π is a PrbAlgΓ -weakly mixing extension. (ii) There exist a PrbAlgop-system = (Z,λ, R) and PrbAlgop-extensions Γ Z Γ φ : and ψ : such that ψ is a non-trivial PrbAlgop- X → Z Z → Y Γ compact extension. op In particular, the relative dichotomy (14) holds for any PrbAlgΓ -extension. 32 A. JAMNESHAN

Proof. If (i) is false, there are f L2(X) with E( f Y) = 0 and ε > 0 such that for ∈ | all γ Γ ∈ γ γ 2 ¯ ¯ 2 2 (15) (T )∗ f f , f f L (X Y X) = (T )∗ f, f L (X Y) 2 ε. h ⊗ ⊗ i × kh i | kL (Y) ≥ Let K be the unique element of the closed convex hull of OrbΓ( f f¯). By The- ⊗ orem 2.9 K is Γ-invariant, and by (15) K is non-trivial. Since E( f Y) = 0, there 2 2 2 | must exist g L (X) such that K Y g L (X) L (Y). Let = K Y g ∈2 ∗ ∈ \ A { ∗ ∈ L∞(X): g L (X) . By Theorem 4.1, every K Y g is contained in a closed ∈ } ∗ ∈A2 Γ-invariant finitely generated L∞(Y)-submodule of L (X). It is not difficult to check that is a Γ-invariant vector subspace of L∞(X) closed under complex A τ conjugation and multiplication. Thus has the structure of a CvNAlgΓop -system A τ such that Φ : L∞(X, µ, T) and Ψ : L∞(Y, ν, S ) are CvNAlg op -factors A → → A Γ with Ψ non-trivial. Then (Z,λ, R) ≔ Proj( ), φ ≔ Proj(Φ) and ψ ≔ Proj(Ψ) A satisfy (ii).

Now let f be relatively weakly mixing and g APX Y . Without loss of gen- ∈ | erality, we may assume that f is bounded and g is an element of an invariant 2 finitely generated L∞(Y)-submodule of L (X). For any γ Γ and h , we M ∈ ∈M have

γ γ f, g L2(X Y) L2(Y) = (T )∗ f, (T )∗g L2(X Y) L2(Y) kh i | k kh i | k γ γ γ (T )∗ f, (T )∗g h L2(X Y) L2(Y) + (T )∗ f, h L2(X Y) L2(Y) ≤ kh − i | k kh i | k γ γ γ (T )∗ f L2(X Y) (T )∗g h L2(X Y) L2(Y) + (T )∗ f, h L2(X Y) L2(Y) ≤ kk k | k − k | k kh i | k γ γ f L (X) (T )∗g h L2(X Y) L2(Y) + (T )∗ f, h L2(X Y) L2(Y) ≤k k ∞ kk − k | k kh i | k where the second inequality follows from the conditional Cauchy-Schwarz in- equality. For any δ > 0, we can first choose h and then γ such that the last term is < δ uniformly in γ. Hence f, g L2(X Y) L2(Y) = 0, and thus f, g L2(X) = 0. It kh i | k h i remains to show that if f < WMX Y , then f must correlate with some g APX Y, but | ∈ | this follows by a similar argument as in the first part of the proof. 

op Remark 6.3. A PrbAlg -extension π : issaid tobe ergodic if InvΓ( ) = Γ X → Y X InvΓ( ) (after identifying InvΓ( ) with a subalgebra of ). Using the relative Y Y X dichotomy (14), it is not difficult to show that a PrbAlgop-extension π : Γ X → Y is weakly mixing if and only if is a relatively ergodic extension of . X ×Y X Y Remark 6.4. The relative dichotomy (14) can be extended to a conditional Halmos-von Neumann type decomposition of the conditional Hilbert space L2(X Y) | which is the external interpretation of the internal Halmos-von Neumann theo- rem of the topos Sh(Y). In fact, this provides an alternative route to the proof of Theorem 6.2. To be more precise, construct from a PrbAlgop-extension π : Γ X → an internal measure-preserving dynamical system in Sh(Y) (see Remark 4.3), Y AN UNCOUNTABLE FURSTENBERG-ZIMMER STRUCTURE THEORY 33 apply to that internal system the internal Halmos-von Neumann theorem, and then externally interpret the resulting internal orthogonal decomposition. This reasoning which basically reduces to a translation process between the external and internal universes is enabled by a logical Boolean transfer principle power- ful enough to yield a Halmos-von Neumann theorem in the internal logic of the topos Sh(Y). In fact, the above proof of Theorem 6.2 is a reflection and validation of that transfer principle.

References [1] L. Alaoglu and G. Birkhoff. General ergodic theorems. Ann. of Math., 41:293–309, 1940. [2] T. Austin. Extensions of probability-preserving systems by measurably-varying homoge- neous spaces and applications. Fund. Math., 210(2):133–206, 2010. [3] F. Beleznay and M. Foreman. The complexity of the collection of measure-distal transfor- mations. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 16(5):929–962, 1996. [4] M. Carl and A. Jamneshan. A transfer principle for second-order arithmetic, and applica- tions. Journal of Logic and Analysis, 10(8):1–32, 2018. [5] P. Cheridito, M. Kupper, and N. Vogelpoth. Conditional analysis on Rd. Set Optimization and Applications, Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 151:179–211, 2015. [6] R. Derndinger, G. Palm, and R. Nagel. Ergodic theory in the perspective of functional analysis. unpublished. [7] J. Dieudonné. Sur le théorème de Lebesgue-Nikodym. III. Ann. Univ. Grenoble. Sect. Sci. Math. Phys. (N.S.), 23:25–53, 1948. [8] S. Drapeau, A. Jamneshan, M. Karliczek, and M. Kupper. The algebra of conditional sets and the concepts of conditional topology and compactness. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 437(1):561–589, 2016. [9] N. Edeko, M. Haase, and H. Kreidler. A decomposition theorem for unitary group repre- sentations on Kaplansky-Hilbert modules and the Furstenberg-Zimmer structure theorem. Forthcoming. [10] M. Einsiedler and T. Ward. Ergodic Theory: with a view towards Number Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer London, 2010. [11] T. Eisner, B. Farkas, M. Haase, and R. Nagel. Operator theoretic aspects of ergodic theory, volume 272 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2015. [12] R. Ellis. Topological dynamics and ergodic theory. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 7(1):25–47, 1987. [13] D. Filipovic,´ M. Kupper, and N. Vogelpoth. Separation and duality in locally L0-convex modules. J. Funct. Anal., 256:3996–4029, 2009. [14] D. H. Fremlin. Measure theory. Vol. 3. Torres Fremlin, Colchester, 2004. Measure algebras, Corrected second printing of the 2002 original. [15] H. Furstenberg. Ergodic behaviour of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemerédi on arithmetic progressions. J. Anal. Math., 31:204–256, 1977. [16] H. Furstenberg. Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory. Prince- ton Legacy Library. Princeton University Press, 2014. [17] E. Glasner. Ergodic Theory via Joinings. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. Ameri- can Mathematical Society, 2015. [18] E. Glasner, B. Tsirelson, and B. Weiss. The automorphism group of the Gaussian measure cannot act pointwise. Israel J. Math., 148:305–329, 2005. [19] W. T. Gowers. A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem for arithmetic progressions of length four. Geom. Funct. Anal., 8(3):529–551, 1998. [20] W. T. Gowers. A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem. Geom. Funct. Anal., 11(3):465–588, 2001. 34 A. JAMNESHAN

[21] B. Green, T. Tao, and T. Ziegler. An inverse theorem for the Gowers U s+1[N]-norm. Ann. of Math. (2), 176(2):1231–1372, 2012. [22] P. R. Halmos. On a theorem of Dieudonné. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 35:38–42, 1949. [23] P. R. Halmos and J. von Neumann. Operator methods in classical mechanics. II. Ann. of Math. (2), 43:332–350, 1942. [24] B. Host and B. Kra. Nonconventional ergodic averages and nilmanifolds. Ann. Math., 161(1):397–488, 2005. [25] A. Jamneshan. Sheaves and conditional sets. arXiv:1403.5405, 2014. [26] A. Jamneshan, M. Kupper, and M. Streckfuß. Measures and integrals in conditional set theory. Set-Valued Var. Anal., 26(4):947–973, 2018. [27] A. Jamneshan and T. Tao. An uncountable Moore-Schmidt theorem. arXiv:1911.12033, 2019. [28] A. Jamneshan and T. Tao. An uncountable Mackey–Zimmer theorem. arXiv:2010.00574, 2020. [29] A. Jamneshan and T. Tao. Foundational aspects of uncountable measure theory: Gelfand duality, Riesz representation, canonical models, and canonical disintegration. arXiv:2010.00681, 2020. [30] S. Kakutani. Concrete representation of abstract (L)-spaces and the mean ergodic theorem. Ann. of Math. (2), 42:523–537, 1941. [31] O. Kallenberg. Foundations of Modern Probability. Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2002. [32] D. Kerr and H. Li. Ergodic theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2016. Independence and dichotomies. [33] G. W. Mackey. Ergodic transformation groups with a pure point spectrum. Illinois J. Math., 8:593–600, 1964. [34] S. MacLane and I. Moerdijk. Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory. Universitext. Springer New York, 2012. [35] J. T. Moore and S. Solecki. A Boolean action of C(M, U(1)) without a spatial model and a re-examination of the Cameron-Martin Theorem. J. Funct. Anal., 263(10):3224–3234, 2012. [36]J. Peterson. Ergodic Theory. Lecture Notes available at https://math.vanderbilt.edu/peters10/index2.html, 2011. [37] S. Popa. Cocycle and orbit equivalence superrigidity for malleable actions of w-rigid groups. Invent. Math., 170(2):243–295, 2007. [38] I. E. Segal. Equivalences of measure spaces. Amer. J. Math., 73:275–313, 1951. [39] E. Szemerédi. On sets of integers containing no k elements in arithmetic progression. Acta. Arith., 27:199–245, 1975. [40] T. Tao. Poincaré’s Legacies: Pages from Year Two of a Mathematical Blog, Vol I. American Mathematical Society, 2009. [41] T. Tao. Real analysis relative to a finite measure space. Blog article available at https://terrytao.wordpress.com, July, 15th 2014. [42] T. Ziegler. Universal characteristic factors and Furstenberg averages. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 20:53–97, 2007. [43] R. J. Zimmer. Ergodic actions with a generalized spectrum. Illinois J. Math., 20:555–588, 1976. [44] R. J. Zimmer. Extension of ergodic group actions. Illinois J. Math., 20:373–409, 1976.

Department of Mathematics,Koc University,Istanbul,Turkey Email address: [email protected]