arXiv:2011.01829v2 [math.GR] 2 Feb 2021 hti symmetric is that nt subset finite ncmiainwt ehiusoiiaigfo lao’ n Yamabe’s and Gleason’s from originating techniques with combination in nlclycmatgop.Beilr–re–a [ Breuillard–Green–Tao neighbourhood groups. to compact related locally closely in are subgroups approximate that ODMDL,IFNT PRXMT UGOP AND SUBGROUPS APPROXIMATE INFINITE MODELS, GOOD sdfie yTo[ Tao by defined As .Aeal prxmt subgroups approximate examples Amenable and properties theorem first closed-approximate-subgroup 5. definition, A : models 4. Good 3. Preliminaries 2. .Gnrlsto fterm fMso n Auslander and Mostow of theorems of References Generalisation 6. .Introduction 1. Abstract. ie eeaiigterm u oAsadr ibraha Bieberbach Auslander, to groups due Lie theorems of generalising radicals tices M of a to intersections all due concerning to quasi-crystals results extend mathematical to cut-and-p for us the allows theorem This and structure n theory. models order suitable good aperiodic of a from viewpoint the and We between this Hartnick. lence qu Bj¨orklund and by address use defined to lattices then subgroups approximate approximate We closed for t amenability structure subgroups. a approximate class and spaces a pact Euclidean yields of turn subgroups in approximate Which theorem. clas closed-subgroup of tan’s variety subgroups. a approximate give of of a setting for generalisations the compact model to to good or groups leads showin a amenability This criteria of to existence simple subgroup. instance the give of for first consequences Breuillar related we study and model, twofold: Hrushovski, good is of a goal work Our the from Tao. stems that groups safis plcto,w rv napoiaesbru vers subgroup approximate an prove we application, first a As F ⊂ A eivsiaetento fgo oeso prxmt sub- approximate of models good of notion the investigate We G = with 41 A PRXMT LATTICES APPROXIMATE − ,a ], 1 | otisteiett,adsatisfies and identity, the contains , F nvriyo Cambridge of University K ≤ | IO MACHADO SIMON apoiaesbru fagroup a of subgroup -approximate 1. K Introduction Contents nasmnlppr[ paper seminal a In . 1 13 usqetyue i ideas his used subsequently ] n prxmt lat- approximate and dMostow. nd yr n oprove to and eyer, 24 fiaino closed of ification eal rusa groups menable sin bu the about estions ia at about facts sical hwteequiva- the show ermfrcom- for heorem rsosishowed Hrushovski ] oetschemes roject approximate n es ethen we ness; xsec of existence g ,Genand Green d, AA o fCar- of ion fteidentity the of s G to of otion ⊂ sasubset a is A F o some for okon work 38 32 23 19 A 8 6 1 2 GOOD MODELS

Hilbert’s 5th problem to prove a theorem describing the structure of arbitrary finite approximate subgroups. Their work was extended in Kreilton-Carolino’s thesis [16] to handle approximate groups that are relatively compact neighbourhoods of the identity in an arbitrary locally compact group. The goal of this paper is to further investigate properties of infinite approximate subgroups. We will prove several results in this direction. In particular we will show (Theorem 4.1 below) that closed approximate subgroups of locally compact groups are commensurable to homomorphic images of open approximate groups in a possibly different locally compact ambient group. This can be seen as an analogue of the classical theorem of Cartan asserting that closed subgroups of Lie groups are Lie subgroups. In turn this enables us to refine the main result of Kreilton-Carolino’s thesis [16] by removing the assumption that the relatively compact approximate groups studied there have non-empty interior (Theorem 1.6 below). But most of the paper will be devoted to investigating a special class of approx- imate groups called approximate lattices. These were introduced in recent work of Bj¨orklund and Hartnick [4]. The uniform (i.e. co-compact) approximate lattices are defined as those symmetric subsets Λ of an ambient locally compact group G that are relatively dense (i.e. G = ΛC for some compact subset C of G) and very discrete in the sense that Λ3 is uniformly discrete (or equivalently the identity is isolated in Λ6). Bj¨orklund and Hartnick made the simple yet remarkable obser- vation that such Λ’s must be approximate subgroups of G. They also defined a non-uniform version of this notion under the name of strong approximate lattice, see [4, Def. 4.9] and Subsection 2.2 below. When G is commutative these sets had been defined and studied already in the 1970’s by Yves Meyer [32]; they are the so- called mathematical quasi-crystals and have been much studied since in particular in connection with mathematical physics [2]. A simple way to construct approximate lattices is via a cut-and-project scheme, namely the datum (G, H, Γ) of two locally compact groups G and H, and a lattice Γ in G × H, which projects injectively to G and densely to H. Given a symmetric relatively compact neighbourhood of the identity W0 ⊂ H, one defines the model set P0(G, H, Γ, W 0) := pG((G × W0) ∩ Γ), where pG is the projection to the first factor. It is easy to see that a model set, or even any set commensurable to a model set, must be an approximate lattice. For more on cut-and-project sets we refer the reader to [6, 7]. Central to our paper is an idea, exploited in [24] and [13] on the way to the structure theorems established there, which consists in defining a certain topology on the approximate group by means of what we will call here a good model: Definition 1. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group Γ. A group homo- morphism f :Γ → H with target a locally compact group H is called a good model (of (Λ, Γ)) if: (1) f(Λ) is relatively compact; (2) there is U ⊂ H a neighbourhood of the identity such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ. If Γ is generated by Λ, then we say that f is a good model of Λ. Any approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ will be called a Meyer subset. This definition is reminiscent of the construction of the so-called Schlichting com- pletion of a pair (Γ, Λ), where Λ ≤ Γ are discrete groups such that Γ commensurates Λ. Indeed if U is also a compact subgroup, then Λ := f −1(U) is commensurated by GOOD MODELS 3

Γ. See for instance the work of Tzanev [43] on Hecke pairs or the works of Shalom and Willis [39] and of Caprace and Monod [15, §5D] on commensurators of discrete groups, where this construction plays a key role. We will show that good models exist in many situations of interest. Indeed our first observation is that for approximate lattices in an ambient group G the existence of a good model is equivalent to being commensurable to a model set via a certain cut-and-project scheme (G, H, Γ). Proposition 1.1. Let Λ be a strong or uniform approximate lattice in a locally compact second countable group G. Then Λ is a Meyer subset if and only if it is commensurable to a model set. Meyer [32] (see also [38, 33, 20]) showed that every approximate lattice in a lo- cally compact commutative group G comes from a cut-and-project construction: in other words it is commensurable to a model set, or equivalently thanks to Proposi- tion 1.1, it is a Meyer subset. The question of extending Meyer’s theorem to other groups has been raised by Bj¨orklund and Hartnick in [4]. This has been achieved for nilpotent and solvable Lie groups in our previous works [28] and [27] following a method close in spirit to Meyer’s. A consequence of the tools developed in the present paper will be a new proof of this fact and indeed a generalization to all locally compact amenable ambient groups (Theorem 1.8 below). In a companion paper ([29]) we show, using some key results of the present paper (notably Proposi- tion 1.1 and Theorem 4.1) in combination with Zimmer’s cocycle superrigidity theo- rem, that Meyer’s theorem also holds for strong approximate lattices in semisimple Lie groups without rank one factors. Another consequence will be a proof of the analogue for approximate lattices of the classical facts about hereditary properties of lattices with respect to intersections with closed normal subgroups (Proposition 6.1) and in particular an Auslander-type theorem regarding the intersection with the amenable radical (Theorem 1.9). The existence of a good model is established via the following fact: Theorem 1.2. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group G. There exists a good model f of Λ if and only if there is a sequence of approximate subgroups 2 (Λn)n≥0 such that Λ0 = Λ and for all integers n ≥ 0 we have Λn+1 ⊂ Λn and Λn commensurable to Λ. This observation is essentially already contained in [24] (see also [13, §6]), but we will give a simple proof requiring only knowledge of elementary point-set topology. In stark contrast with Theorem 1.2 we observe that non-trivial quasi-morphisms `ala Brooks [14] yield constructions of approximate groups that are not Meyer subsets:

Theorem 1.3. Let F2 be the free group over two generators a and b. For any two reduced words w, x ∈ F2 define o(x, w) as the number of occurrences of w in x. −1 −1 Then for any w ∈ F2 \ a,b,a ,b ,e of length l the set −1 g ∈ F2 |o(g, w) − o(g, w )|≤ 3l is an approximate subgroup but not a Meyer subset.

We are now ready to state the main results of this paper. We consider first two interesting classes of approximate groups: compact approximate subgroups and amenable approximate subgroups (Definition 4). We will see that these types of 4 GOOD MODELS approximate subgroups always have good models, and thus are particularly regular types of approximate subgroups. In the case of compact approximate subgroups this leads to a closed-subgroup theorem for approximate subgroups. Theorem 1.4 (Closed-approximate-subgroup theorem). Let Λ be a closed approx- imate subgroup of a locally compact group G. There is an injective locally compact group homomorphism φ : H → G and an open approximate subgroup Ξ of H such 3 that φ|φ−1(Λ) is proper and Λ ⊂ φ(Ξ) ⊂ Λ . Furthermore, if G is a Lie group, then H is a Lie group. Here, a good model of some compact approximate subgroup contained in Λ2 appears implicitly as the inverse of the map φ. Theorem 1.4 and a theorem of Schreiber [38] (which was recently given a new proof by Fish [20]) show that, modulo a compact error term, the structure of closed approximate subgroups of Euclidean spaces is akin to the structure of closed subgroups. Recall that a subset Λ of an ambient group G is called uniformly discrete if e is isolated in Λ−1Λ. Proposition 1.5. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup in Rd. Then we can find k a vector subspace Vo ⊂ R , as well as a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup Λd and a compact approximate subgroup Ke both in a supplementary subspace Vd of Vo such that Λ is commensurable to Vo +Λd + Ke. Theorem 1.4 (in fact the more general Theorem 4.1) in combination with a result of Kreilton-Carolino’s thesis ([16, Theorem 1.25]) which generalised the main result of [13] also yields a structure theorem for all compact approximate subgroups. Theorem 1.6 (Structure of compact approximate subgroups). Let Λ be a compact approximate subgroup of a Hausdorff topological group G and let Λ∞ be the subgroup it generates. Then Λ∞ admits a structure of locally compact group such that the inclusion Λ∞ ⊂ G is continuous and Λ ⊂ Λ∞ is a compact subset with non-empty interior. Moreover, for every ε> 0 there is an approximate subgroup Λ′ ⊂ Λ16 that generates a subgroup open in the topology of Λ∞ and a compact subgroup H ⊂ Λ′ normalised by Λ′ such that: ′ (i) Λ can be covered by OK,ε(1) translates of Λ ; ′ (ii) hΛ i/H is a Lie group of dimension OK (1). If l′ denotes the Lie algebra of hΛ′i/H and Λ′′ the image of Λ′ in hΛ′i/H, then there exists a norm | · | on l′ such that: ′ (iii) for X, Y ∈ l we have |[X, Y ]|≤ OK (|X||Y |) ; ′′ (iv) for g ∈ Λ the operator norm (induced by | · |) of Ad(g) − Id is OK (ε); ′′ ′′ (v) there is a convex set B ⊂ l such that Λ /B is a finite OK,ε(1)-approximate local group. Likewise, we are able to prove that amenability assumptions force approximate subgroups to have good models. It is well known that in many situations existence of some invariant finitely additive measures implies existence of a good model (see e.g. [24, 26, 37, 17]). We show how to build such a measure on any closed approximate subgroup close to an amenable group. Thus proving: Theorem 1.7. Let G be a locally compact second countable group, H ⊂ G be a normal amenable closed subgroup and K ⊂ G be a compact subset. If Λ is a closed approximate subgroup contained in KH then the closure of Λ4 has a good model. GOOD MODELS 5

As a corollary, we generalise Meyer’s seminal theorem [32] to all approximate lattices in amenable locally compact groups. Theorem 1.8 (Meyer theorem for amenable groups). If Λ is an approximate lattice in an amenable locally second countable compact group G, then Λ is contained in and commensurable to a model set. Recall that we had already established this result in [28, 27] in the special case when G is a soluble Lie group. Our method here is very different however. Further- more, when G is a Lie group we are able to get more precise information: we know that Λ is always uniform and that we can find a good model of Λ4 with target a connected amenable Lie group (see Propositions 5.9 and 5.10). Theorem 1.7 also allows us to study approximate subgroups in a neighbourhood of the amenable radical of a Lie group. This strategy yields a generalisation of theorems due to Auslander [1, Theorem 1] and Mostow [34, Lemma 3.9] about intersections of lattices and radicals in Lie groups. Theorem 1.9. Let Λ be a uniform or strong approximate lattice in G a connected Lie group or a finite product of affine algebraic groups over local fields of character- istic 0. Let A be its amenable radical, R be its soluble radical. Then the approximate subgroup Λ2 ∩ A is a uniform approximate lattice in A. If the projections of Λ∞ to all compact simple factors are dense, then Λ2 ∩ A is a uniform approximate lattice in N. We mention that in a recent preprint [25] Hrushovski has studied a kind of good quasi-model, where the map f is allowed to be a quasi-homomorphism rather than a group homomorphism. In particular he shows there the remarkable fact that all approximate subgroups admit a good quasi-model (this is in particular coherent with Theorem 1.3). 1.1. Proof strategy. The proof of Proposition 1.1 relies on Lemma 3.12 that asserts that the graph of a good model of a discrete approximate subgroup is a discrete subgroup. This observation is key in the rest of the paper. In order to prove Theorem 1.2 we want to use the sequence (Λn)n≥0 to define ∞ a neighbourhood basis for the identity in Λ . The sequence (Λn) is not a priori suitable however, so the first step is to consider a ‘normalised’ version of (Λn)n≥0 and to define the topology T generated by those subsets. The algebraic properties ∞ of (Λn)n≥0 then make Λ equipped with T into a topological locally pre-compact group. We are thus able to find a completion of Λ∞ and this completion map is the right candidate for a good model of Λ. We note thereafter that our construction of good models is sufficiently simple and explicit to be made compatible with various other structures our group G may have (see Proposition 3.6 and Proposition 3.7). Since good models come from the completion of a topology on Λ∞ we know that a good model and its target will inherit many properties of Λ∞. This observation leads to a proof of Theorem 1.3: we choose an approximate subgroup that is a ‘quasi- kernel’ of a quasi-morphism, and, thus, has ‘co-dimension’ one. We then manage to show that any good model, if one exists, essentially has a target of dimension one. And even more precisely that the good model and the quasi-morphism are within bounded distance. Then [14] allows us to conclude. Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.6 are also consequences of this observation. A com- pact approximate subgroup Λ comes with a topology that provides natural candi- dates for the sequence (Λn)n≥0, namely any neighbourhood basis for the identity 6 GOOD MODELS in the topological space Λ. Once we have shown that Λ behaves locally like a group (Lemma 4.2) we readily prove that (Λn)n≥0 indeed satisfies the conditions of The- orem 1.2. We then remark that the good model of Λ we obtain has a continuous inverse. This inverse map turns out to be the one described in the statements of Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.6. To prove Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.8 we define amenable approximate sub- groups. In the discrete case this definition is a a particular case of the definably amenable groups from [31, Definition 1] and of the near-subgroups from [24]. We therefore know that discrete amenable approximate subgroups have a good model by [24, §4]. A variation of an argument by Massicot and Wagner found in [31] and Theorem 1.2 shows that this is in fact true in greater generality. Then the proof of Theorem 1.7 essentially reduces to two steps : showing that a neighbourhood of a normal amenable subgroup is amenable and showing heredity of amenability for closed approximate subgroups. The former is proved thanks to a combination and adaptation of techniques from the theory of amenable locally compact groups as found in [13] while the latter step is a result of the existence of some Borel section of a closed approximate subgroup (Lemma 5.6). The extension of Meyer’s theorem to amenable groups (Theorem 1.8) becomes an easy consequence of Theorem 1.7 and the equivalence between good models and cut-and-project schemes for approximate lattices (Proposition 1.1). These results are particularly useful in the proof of Theorem 1.9. To prove Theorem 1.9 we roughly follow a proof strategy from [1]. We first prove a Borel density theorem for approximate lattices and a general result about intersections of approximate lattices and closed subgroups in the spirit of [36, Theorem 1.13]. We also make a crucial use of Theorem 1.7 to prove that discrete approximate subgroups around a normal soluble subgroup generate soluble subgroups (Lemma 6.8 ).

2. Preliminaries 2.1. Preliminaries on approximate subgroups and commensurability. We start with some notations: for a subset X of a group G and a non-negative integer −1 −1 n ∞ n define X = {x |x ∈ X}, X := {x1 ··· xn|x1,...,xn ∈ X} and X := n n≥0 X . Recall that an approximate subgroup is a subset Λ of a group that is symmetric (i.e. Λ = Λ−1), contains the identity and such that there exists a finite S 2 subset F ⊂ G with Λ := {λ1λ2 ∈ G|λ1, λ2 ∈ Λ} ⊂ F Λ. We will say that two subsets X, Y ⊂ G are (left-)commensurable if there exists a finite subset F ⊂ G such that X ⊂ F Y and Y ⊂ FX. Note that commensurability is an equivalence relation between subsets of a group. We collect here well-known facts about approximate subgroups and commensu- rability in a form and with hypotheses suitable to our discussion (See [41, 13, 24, 42] for this and more background material). Lemma 2.1 (Rusza’s covering lemma). Let X, Y be subsets of a group G and F ⊂ −1 X be maximal such that (fY )f∈F is a family of disjoint sets. Then X ⊂ F Y Y . Proof. If x ∈ X, then there is f ∈ F such that xY ∩ fY 6= ∅. So x ∈ F Y Y −1. 

Lemma 2.2. Let X0,X1,...,Xr be subsets of a group G and F1,...,Fr ⊂ G be finite subsets such that X0 ⊂ FiXi for all integers 1 ≤ i ≤ r. There is F ⊂ G with GOOD MODELS 7

|F | ≤ |F1| · · · |Fr| such that −1 X0 ⊂ F · Xi Xi. 1≤\i≤n Proof. Take f := (fi) ∈ F1 ×···× Fr and whenever 1≤i≤r fiXi 6= ∅ choose an element x ∈ f X . If x is any element of X then there must be some f 1≤i≤r i i 0 T f ∈ F ×···×F such that x ∈ f X . We thus have x−1x ∈ X−1X . 1 r T 1≤i≤r i i f 1≤i≤n i i Defining F := {x |f ∈ F ×···× F ,X ∩ f X 6= ∅}, we find f 1 T n 0 1≤i≤r i i T −1 X0 ⊂ F · TXi Xi. 1≤\i≤n 

Lemma 2.3. Let K1,...,Kr be positive integers and take a Ki-approximate sub- group Λi of G for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r. We have: 2 3 3 (1) 1≤i≤r Λi is a K1 ··· Kr - approximate subgroup; (2) if (Ξi)1≤i≤r is a family of approximate subgroups with Ξi commensurable T 2 2 to Λi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r, then 1≤i≤r Λi and 1≤i≤r Ξi are commensurable. 4 3 Proof. We know that Λi is covered byT Ki left-translatesT of Λi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r. So 4 (1) is a consequence of Lemma 2.2 applied to 1≤i≤r Λi and Λ1,..., Λr. Statement (2) is a consequence of Lemma 2.2 applied to Λ2 and Ξ ,..., Ξ .  T 1≤i≤r i 1 r Lemma 2.4. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two commensurableT approximate subgroups of a −1 2 −1 2 group G. Let φ : H → G be a group homomorphism. Then φ (Λ1) and φ (Λ2) are commensurable approximate subgroups of H. 2 2 Proof. By Lemma 2.3 the subsets φ(H) ∩ Λ1 and φ(H) ∩ Λ2 are commensurable approximate subgroups. Take {i, j}⊂{1, 2}, we can find a finite subset Fij ⊂ H 2 2 2 such that (φ(H) ∩ Λi ) ⊂ φ(Fij ) φ(H) ∩ Λj . In other words, −1 2 2 −1 2 φ (Λ i ) ⊂ Fij
φ (Λj ). −1 2 −1 2  So φ (Λ1) and φ (Λ2) are commensurable approximate subgroups. 2.2. Invariant hull, strong approximate lattices and cut-and-project schemes. Let G be a locally compact second countable group and let C(G) be the set of closed subsets of G. The Chabauty-Fell topology on C(G) is defined by the subbase of open subsets: V U = {F ∈C(G)|F ∩ V 6= ∅} and UK = {F ∈C(G)|F ∩ K = ∅} for all V ⊂ G open and K ⊂ G compact. One can check that the map G ×C(G) →C(G) (g, F ) 7→ gF defines a continuous action of the group G on C(G) and that C(G) is a compact metrizable set (see [19]). Convergence in the Chabauty-Fell topology can also be characterised in the following way: a sequence (Fi)i≥0 converges to F ∈ C(G) if and only if (1) for every x ∈ F there are xi ∈ Fi for all i ∈ N such that xi → x as i → ∞; (2) If xi ∈ Fi for all i ∈ N then every accumulation point of (xi)i≥0 lies in F (see [8, Section 2.2]). Given a closed subset F of G we define the invariant hull ΩF of F as the closure of the G-orbit of F (i.e. G · F ) equipped with the induced 8 GOOD MODELS continuous G-action. Note that if H is a closed subgroup, then ΩH is isomorphic as a compact G-space to the one-point compactification of G/H ([8, Lem. 2.3]). Definition 2 ([4]). Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a locally compact second countable group G. We say that Λ is a strong approximate lattice if: (1) Λ is uniformly discrete i.e. ΛΛ−1 ∩ V = {e} for some neighbourhood of the identity V ; (2) there is a G-invariant Borel probability measure ν on ΩΛ with ν({∅})=0 (we say that ν is proper). In particular, a subgroup is a lattice if and only if it is a strong approximate lat- tice. Recall that a uniform approximate lattice is a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup of G such that there exists a compact subset K ⊂ G with ΛK = G. We do not know in general if uniform approximate lattices are strong. However, when the ambient group is amenable we have: Lemma 2.5. If Λ is a uniform approximate lattice in an amenable locally compact second countable group G, then Λ is a strong approximate lattice.

Proof. Since G is amenable and ΩΛ is a compact G-space, there exists a G-invariant Borel probability measure ν defined on ΩΛ. But there is a compact subset K ⊂ G such that ΛK = G, thus one checks that PK = G for all P ∈ ΩΛ. So ∅ ∈/ ΩΛ and ν is automatically proper.  Bj¨orklund and Hartnick also defined in [4] the more general notion of approx- imate lattices. An approximate lattice is defined by the existence of certain sta- tionary measures on the invariant hull. All strong or uniform approximate lattices are approximate lattices but it is not known whether the converse holds or not. Nonetheless, when the ambient group is amenable the notions of strong approxi- mate lattices and approximate lattices are equivalent ([4, Rem. 4.14.(1)]). We recall now the definition of a cut-and-project scheme: Definition 3 (Definitions 2.11 and 2.12, [4]). A cut-and-project scheme (G, H, Γ) is the datum of two locally compact groups G and H, and a lattice Γ in G × H which projects injectively to G and densely to H. For any symmetric relatively compact neighbourhood of the identity W0 ⊂ H we define the model set

P0(G, H, Γ, W0) := pG ((G × W0) ∩ Γ) ⊂ G where pG : G × H → G denotes the natural projection. It was shown in [4, 6] that cut-and-project schemes enable us to build strong approximate lattices: Proposition 2.6 (Theorem 3.4, [6] and Proposition 2.13, [4]). Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut-and-project scheme and W0 be a symmetric relatively compact neighbourhood of the identity. If G is second countable and ∂W0 is Haar-null, then P0(G, H, Γ, W0) is a strong approximate lattice. If Γ is a uniform lattice, then P0(G, H, Γ, W0) is a uniform approximate lattice.

3. Good models : definition, first properties and examples In this section we investigate elementary properties of good models. We will prove in particular Proposition 1.1, Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.3. GOOD MODELS 9

3.1. About the definition of good models. Let us recall the definition of good models: Definition. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group Γ. A group homomor- phism f :Γ → H with target a locally compact group H is called a good model (of (Λ, Γ)) if: (1) f(Λ) is relatively compact; (2) there is U ⊂ H a neighbourhood of the identity such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ. Remark 3.1. Restricting the range of the good model f we can always assume that f has dense image. Definition 1 involves both the choice of a map f and an open subset U. However, up to commensurability, the choice of U does not matter as the following shows:

Lemma 3.1. Let H be a locally compact group, Γ be a discrete group, V1 and V2 be symmetric relatively compact neighbourhoods of the identity in H and f : Γ → H −1 −1 be a group homomorphism. The subsets f (V1) and f (V2) are commensurable approximate subgroups.

Proof. Take i, j ∈{1, 2}. The identity belongs to the interior int(Vj ) of Vj so

2 Vi ⊂ h int(Vj ). h∈V 2 [i 2 But int(Vj ) is open and Vi is relatively compact, and, thus, there is a finite subset 2 2 Fij ⊂ Vi such that Vi ⊂ Fij U. Since V1 and V2 are moreover symmetric subsets, we have that V1 and V2 are commensurable approximate subgroups. Choose now a symmetric open neighbourhood of the identity W such that W 2 is contained in −1 2 −1 2 −1 2 V1 and V2. Then f (W ),f (V1 ) and f (V2 ) are commensurable approximate −1 2 −1 −1 2 subgroups by Lemma 2.3. But for i =1, 2 we have f (W ) ⊂ f (Vi) ⊂ f (Vi ). −1 −1 So f (V1) and f (V2) are commensurable approximate subgroups.  Corollary 3.2. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group Γ and f : Γ → H be a good model of (Λ, Γ). If U ⊂ H is a symmetric neighbourhood of the identity such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ, then f −1(U) is an approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ. What may come as a surprise at first is the fact that the property to have a good model is stable under group homomorphisms. Lemma 3.3. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group Γ. Suppose that (Λ, Γ) has a good model. We have : −1 (1) if φ1 : Γ1 → Γ is a group homomorphism, then φ1 (Λ) is an approximate −1 subgroup and (φ1 (Λ), Γ1) has a good model; (2) if φ2 : Γ → Γ2 is a group homomorphism, then (φ2(Λ), φ2(Γ)) has a good model. Proof. Let f : Γ → H be a good model of (Λ, Γ) and let U ⊂ H be an open −1 subset as in Definition 1. Set furthermore Λ1 := φ1 (Λ) and f1 := f ◦ φ1. Then −1 f1(Λ1)= f(Λ) is relatively compact and f1 (U) ⊂ Λ1. Hence, Λ1 is an approximate subgroup by Lemma 3.1 and f1 is a good model of (Λ1, Γ1). Let us now prove (2). Take a good model f :Γ → H of (Λ, Γ) with dense image and U ⊂ H a symmetric 10 GOOD MODELS

−1 2 neighbourhood of the identity such that f (U ) ⊂ Λ. Define N := f(ker(φ2)) which is a normal subgroup since f(Γ) is dense. Now −1 −1 2 −1 2 (pH/N ◦ f) (pH/N (U)) ⊂ f (U f(ker(φ2))) ⊂ f (U ) ker(φ2) ⊂ Λ ker(φ2) where pH/N : H → H/N denotes the natural projection. Therefore, the obvious map φ2(Γ) → H/N is a good model of (φ2(Λ), φ2(Γ)). 

3.2. Group-theoretic characterisation of good models. We will prove the following detailed version of Theorem 1.2: Theorem 3.4. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group Γ. The following are equivalent: (1) there is a good model f :Γ → H of (Λ, Γ); (2) there exists a sequence (Λn)n≥0 of approximate subgroups such that: (a) Λ0 =Λ; −1 (b) for all integers n ≥ 0 and all γ ∈ Γ, the approximate subgroups γΛnγ and Λ are commensurable; 2 (c) for all integers n ≥ 0, we have Λn+1 ⊂ Λn; (3) there exists a family of subsets B such that: (a) there is Ξ ∈B with Ξ ⊂ Λ; (b) all elements of B contain e and are commensurable to Λ; −1 −1 (c) for all Λ1 ∈B and γ ∈ Γ, there is Λ2 ∈B with γΛ2 Λ2γ ⊂ Λ1. Moreover, when any of the three statements above is satisfied: (4) with B as in (3), we can choose a good model f : Γ → H such that f has dense image and B is a neighbourhood basis for the identity with respect to the initial topology on Γ given by f; (5) there is a good model f0 : Γ → H0 of (Λ, Γ) such that for any other good model f : Γ → H of (Λ, Γ) we have a continuous group homomorphism φ : H0 → H with compact kernel such that f = φ ◦ f0; (6) if Λ is a K-approximate subgroup, then there exists a sequence (Λn)n≥0 8 with Λ0 =Λ and as in (2) such that Λ is covered by CK,n left-translates of Λn for all n ≥ 0, where CK,n is an integer that depends on K and n only. Before we move on to the proof of Theorem 3.4 we mention two other approaches. In both, the first step is to embed Λ in a “sufficiently saturated elementary exten- sion”. In our situation, this means embedding Λ in an ultra-power of Λ over a sufficiently large ultra-filter. Then one can either consider a language in which the subsets making the sequence (Λn)n≥0 are definable, and define T as the logic topol- ogy (as in e.g. [24, Lemma 3.4],[31]). Otherwise one can proceed as in [13, Lemma 6.6] constructing a distance via the Birkhoff–Kakutani construction. Either way would provide a locally compact group topology on a quotient of the “sufficiently saturated elementary extension”. Note that since taking the metric completion is essentially taking a quotient of a suitable ultra-power, the three approaches are essentially the same. Conversely, the extra structure obtained through these two approaches is implicitly obtained in the proof of Theorem 3.4, since the set B we construct in step (2) ⇒ (3) is contained in any Boolean algebra containing the 2 subsets (Λn). Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): GOOD MODELS 11

Choose a neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ H such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ. There exists a sequence (Un)n>0 of relatively compact symmetric neighbourhoods of the 2 identity in H such that U0 = U and Un+1 ⊂ Un for all integers n ≥ 0. Define −1 now (Λn)n≥0 by Λ0 =Λ and Λn = f (Un). We readily check that for all integers 2 −1 n ≥ 0 we have Λn+1 ⊂ Λn. Furthermore, for all γ ∈ Γ, γΛnγ is an approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ by Corollary 3.2. So (1) ⇒ (2) is proved. (2) ⇒ (3): Let (Λn)n≥0 be as in (2). For any two subsets X, Y ⊂ G define XY := yXy−1. y\∈Y Define now B by

2 F B := Λn | ∀n ∈ N, ∀F ⊂ Γ, |F | < ∞ .

2 n o We know that Λ1 ⊂ Λ and
that for all Ξ ∈ B we have e ∈ Ξ and Ξ is an approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ (Lemma 2.3). Now, for all n ∈ N and F ⊂ Γ finite we have 2 2 F 4 F 2 F Λn+1 ⊂ Λn+1 ⊂ Λn and for γ ∈ Γ we find 


2 F −1 2 γF γ Λn γ ⊂ Λn . So B satisfies (3).

(3) ⇒ (1): Equip the group Λ∞ with the topology defined by T = {U ⊂ Γ|∀γ ∈ U, ∃Ξ ∈B,γΞ ⊂ U} . By [10, Chapter III, §1.2, Proposition 1] the topology T is the unique topology that makes G into a topological group and such that B is a neighbourhood basis for e. Now, the closure {e} of the identity is a closed normal subgroup and the group Γ/{e} equipped with the quotient topology is the maximal Hausdorff factor of Γ. Let p : Γ → Γ/{e} be the natural map. Then {p(Ξ)|Ξ ∈ B} is a neighbourhood basis for the identity in Γ/{e}. But the subsets that belong to B are pairwise commensurable, so the neighbourhoods {p(Ξ)|Ξ ∈ B} are pre-compact. Hence, the topological group Γ/{e} has a completion by [45, Theorem X]. In other words, there is a locally compact group H and a group homomorphism i :Γ/{e} → H such that i has dense image and is a homeomorphism onto its image. Define the map f := i ◦ p. We will show that f is a good model. The group H is a complete space and Λ is pre-compact in the topology T according to assumption (b). So f(Λ) is a relatively compact subset of H. Recall that i is a homeomorphism onto its image, the map p is open and B is a neighbourhood basis for the identity. There is thus a neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ H such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ according to assumption (a). Statement (4) is straightforward from the proof of (3) ⇒ (1). Let us prove (5). Let T0 denote the initial topology on Γ with respect to the class of all good models f : Γ → H of (Λ, Γ). In other words, the topology T0 is generated by the family −1 of subsets {f (U)}f,U where f : Γ → H and U run through all good models of 12 GOOD MODELS

(Λ, Γ) and all open subsets U ⊂ H. Define B0 as {U ∈ T0|e ∈ U ⊂ Λ}. Since Λ is assumed to have a good model we know that B0 is not empty. So take Ξ ∈B0. Then there are good models (fi : Γ → Hi)1≤i≤r of (Λ, Γ) and open relatively compact neighbourhoods of the identity Ui ⊂ Hi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ r such that

−1 fi (Ui) ⊂ Ξ ⊂ Λ. 1≤\i≤r But according to Corollary 3.2 and Lemma 2.3 we know that Λ is commensurable −1 to 1≤i≤r fi (Ui), hence to Ξ. So B0 satisfies conditions (a) and (b) of (3). But conditions (c) and (d) of (3) are also satisfied since (G, T ) is a topological group. T 0 Let now f0 : Γ → H0 be as in the proof of (3) ⇒ (1). Then every good model f : Γ → H of (Λ, Γ) is continuous with respect to T0. According to the universal properties of quotients and completions one can therefore find a continuous group homomorphism φ : H0 → H such that φ ◦ f0 = f. Take a good model f : Γ → H of (Λ, Γ) with dense image. We can find a relatively compact open symmetric neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ H such that Λ ⊂ f −1(U) ⊂ Λ2. So f −1(U) is a K3-approximate subgroup, and, hence, U is a K3-approximate subgroup as well. But by [16, Cor. 5.6 and Lem. 5.4] (or Lemma 5.2 below) we can find an symmetric open neighbourhood of the identity 4 16 4 S ⊂ U such that S is contained in U and CK left-translates of S cover U for −1 some constant CK that depends on K only. We thus define Λ1 = f (S) and CK,1 = CK . A proof by induction on n then shows (6). 

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Theorem 1.2 is the equivalence “(1) ⇔ (2)” in Theorem 3.4. 

As a consequence of Theorem 3.4 we show that Meyer subsets almost have a good model: Proposition 3.5. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of some group. If Λ is a Meyer subset then there is a positive integer such that Λn has a good model.

Proof. By Theorem 3.4 there is a sequence (Λn)n≥0 of approximate subgroups 2 commensurable to Λ such that Λn+1 ⊂ Λn for all integers n ≥ 0. Theorem 3.4 again implies that the approximate subgroup Λ ∪ Λ0 has a good model, and so ∞ ∞ has (Λ ∪ Λ0) ∩ Λ by Lemma 3.3. But (Λ ∪ Λ0) ∩ Λ is commensurable to Λ (Lemma 2.2) and Λ∞ is generated by Λ. So there is a positive integer n such that ∞ n (Λ ∪ Λ0) ∩ Λ is contained in Λ . 

3.3. Universal properties and compatibility with limits. An interest of ap- proaching Theorem 3.4 via saturated elementary extensions is that it shows that, to some extent, good models correspond to a certain notion of quotients of groups by approximate subgroups (see [24, Lemma 3.4] and [31] for details). Our method too enables us to build a good model that satisfies a quotient-like universal property. We think of this good model as a “maximal” or “initial” good model. We also identify a type of “minimal” or “final” good model (see also Remark 3.4 for facts and questions around this particular good model). Proposition 3.6. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup of a group G and let Γ ⊂ G be a subgroup containing Λ such that (Λ, Γ) has a good model. We have: GOOD MODELS 13

(1) if f0 : Γ → H0 is as in part (5) of Theorem 3.4, then any group homo- morphism g : Γ → L with target a topological group and such that g(Λ) is relatively compact factors through f0 i.e. there exists a continuous group homomorphism h : H0 → L such that h ◦ f0 = g; (2) there is an approximate subgroup Ξ ⊂ G commensurable to Λ and a good model f : Ξ∞ → H of Ξ with dense image and target a connected Lie group without normal compact subgroup. Such a group H is unique up to continuous isomorphisms.

Remark 3.2. One can note that f0 enjoys a universal property similar to the Bohr compactification of a subgroup, and, indeed, if Λ = Γ, then H0 is the Bohr com- pactification of Λ.

Proof. Take BL a neighbourhood basis for the identity in L made of symmetric subsets and take any BΛ as in part (3) of Theorem 3.4. Then as a consequence −1 of Lemma 2.2 we know that B := {Ξ ∩ g (U)|Ξ ∈ BΛ,U ∈ BL} satisfies the assumptions of part (3) of Theorem 3.4. Now by part (4) of Theorem 3.4 and by the universal properties of completions and quotients we can build a good model f : Γ → H such that g factors through f. But according to part (5) of Theorem 3.4 we know that g factors through f0 - proving (1). Take f :Λ∞ → H a good model of Λ with dense image. By the Gleason–Yamabe theorem there is H˜ ⊂ H an open subgroup and a normal compact subgroup K of H˜ such that H/K˜ is a connected Lie group without non-trivial normal com- pact subgroup. Then Λ′ := f −1(UK), where U ⊂ H˜ is any symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity, is an approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ according to Lemma 3.1. But the composition of f|Λ′ and the natural projection H˜ → H/L˜ is easily checked to be a good model of Λ′. Now take Ξ and Ξ′ approx- imate subgroups commensurable to Λ, and let f : Ξ∞ → H and f ′ : (Ξ′)∞ → H′ be good models of Ξ and Ξ′ respectively. Suppose moreover that both satisfy (2). Let D : (Ξ2 ∩ Ξ′2)∞ → H × H′ be the diagonal map and let ∆ be the closure of its image. Since f and f ′ are good models of commensurable approximate subgroups we know that ∆ ∩ H and ∆ ∩ H′ are compact subgroups. Moreover, Ξ2 ∩ Ξ′2 is commensurable to both Ξ and Ξ′ by Lemma 2.2. So the projection of ∆ to H contains an open subset by the Baire category theorem i.e. ∆ projects densely to H by connectedness. Likewise the projection of ∆ to H′ is dense. So ∆ ∩ H and ∆∩H′ are compact normal subgroups of H and H′ respectively. Which means that they are trivial. As a consequence, ∆ is the graph of a continuous isomorphism ′ ′ ′ ∞ φ : H → H such that f|(Ξ2∩Ξ′2)∞ = φ ◦ f|(Ξ2∩Ξ 2) . This proves (2). 

We will show later on that, upon dropping the requirement that f0 be a good model, part (1) of Proposition 3.6 can be extended to all approximate subgroups. See Proposition 4.5 below. A key point in both [13] and [24] consists in utilising ultraproducts of approx- imate subgroups to study all members of a family of approximate subgroups at once. Notably, they showed that ultraproducts of finite approximate subgroups have a good model, as this enabled them to use features of Lie groups and locally compact groups (such as tools developed by Gleason, Yamabe and others in the resolution of Hilbert’s fifth problem) to tackle problems about finite approximate 14 GOOD MODELS subgroups. In a similar fashion, ultraproducts of locally compact approximate sub- groups (i.e. compact symmetric neighbourhoods of the identity) were shown to have a good model in [16] in order to obtain uniform and quantitative - although non-constructive - versions of the Gleason–Yamabe structure theorem for locally compact groups. We show that in general the property to have a good model is stable under ultrapoducts.

Proposition 3.7. Let (Λi)i∈I be a family of K-approximate subgroups of the groups (Γi)i∈I for some fixed integer K.

(1) ([12, App. A]) the ultraproduct Λ := i∈I Λi/U is an approximate subgroup for any ultrafiltre U over I; Q 8 (2) if moreover Λi has a good model for all i ∈ I, then Λ has a good model. Suppose that there are a directed order ≤ on I and injective group homomorphisms ψij :Γi → Γj for all i ≤ j such that ψjk ◦ ψij = ψik for all i ≤ j ≤ k. And suppose moreover that ψij (Λi) ⊂ Λj whenever i ≤ j. Then: (3) the direct limit lim Λ2 is an approximate subgroup; −→I i (4) if moreover Λ has a good model for all i ∈ I, then lim Λ8 has a good i −→I i model.

Proof. If Λi has a good model for all i ∈ I then there are constants (CK,n)n≥0 and sequences (Λi,n)n≥0 as in part (6) of Theorem 3.4. But then for any ultrafiltre U 8 over I we know that Λ is covered by CK,n left-translates of Λn := i∈I Λi,n/U for all n ≥ 0 (see e.g. [12, App. A] for background material on ultraproducts of 8Q groups). So (Λn)n≥0 satisfies part (2) of Theorem 3.4 and Λ0 = Λ has a good model. Let U be an ultrafiltre on I that contains the cofinal subsets {i ∈ I|j ≤ i} for all j ∈ I. Write Λ and Γ for the ultraproducts of (Λi)i∈I and (Γi)i∈I over U respectively. By the universal property of direct limits there is a natural map φ : lim Γ → Γ and we compute that φ−1(Λ) = lim Λ . So lim Λ2 is an approximate −→I i −→I i −→I i subgroup by Lemma 2.4. If every Λi has a good model, then the approximate subgroup Λ8 has a good model by (2). So lim Λ8 has a good model by Lemma −→I i 3.3.  One may wonder if a converse to part (2) of Proposition 3.7 holds. The next section will give rise to an interesting counter-example. Namely:

Lemma 3.8. There is a sequence (Λn)n≥0 of approximate subgroups such that n≥0 Λn/U has a good model but for all n ≥ 0, Λn is not a Meyer subset, where U is any non-principal ultrafiltre on N. Q We delay the proof to the end of the next subsection. 3.4. An approximate subgroup without a good model. Recall that a quasi- morphism of a group G is a map f : G → R such that

C(f) := sup |f(g1g2) − f(g1) − f(g2)| < ∞. g1,g2∈G We say that f is symmetric if for all g ∈ G we have f(g−1) = −f(g) and that it is homogeneous if for all n ∈ Z and g ∈ G we have f(gn)= nf(g). Just like group homomorphisms quasi-morphisms give rise to families of approximate subgroups. The approximate subgroups produced that way are often called quasi-kernels. GOOD MODELS 15

Lemma 3.9. Let G be a group and f : G → R be a symmetric quasi-morphism. −1 2R+C(f) Then for all R > C(f) the set f ([−R; R]) is a 2 R−C(f)+2 -approximate subgroup. Proof. Let Λ denote the set f −1([−R; R]). Then Λ is symmetric since f is symmet- ric and the set f(Λ2) is contained in [−2R−C(f); 2R+C(f)]. Set δ := R−C(f) > 0 and choose a finite subset F ⊂ Λ2 such that f(F ) is a maximal δ/2-separated subset 2 2R+C(f) of f(Λ ). We know that |F | < 2 R−C(f)+2 and in addition we have

f(Λ2) ⊂ f(γ) + [−δ; δ]. γ[∈F Take λ ∈ Λ2 and γ ∈ F such that |f(λ) − f(γ)|≤ δ. We have |f(γ−1λ) − (f(λ) − f(γ)) |≤ C(f), so |f(γ−1λ)|≤ C(f)+ δ = R. Hence, γ−1λ ∈ Λ and Λ2 ⊂ F Λ. 

Since all bounded maps are quasi-morphisms, quasi-morphisms are often studied up to a bounded error. This gives an equivalence relation between quasi-morphisms that can be translated as a commensurability condition on quasi-kernels.

Lemma 3.10. Let G be a group and f1,f2 : G → R be two symmetric quasi- morphisms. Suppose that supg∈G |f1(g) − f2(g)| < ∞. Then for all R1 > C(f1) −1 and R2 > C(f2) the approximate subgroups Λ1 := f1 ([−R1; R1]) and Λ2 := −1 f2 ([−R2; R2]) are commensurable. More precisely, there is F ⊂ G with |F | ≤ max( 2(R1+η) , 2(R2+η) ) such that Λ ⊂ F Λ and Λ ⊂ F Λ . R2−C(f2)+2 R1−C(f1)+2 1 2 2 1

Proof. Write δ1 := R1 − C(f1) and η := supg∈G |f1(g) − f2(g)|. Choose a maximal δ1/2-separated subset F1 of f1(Λ2). Since f1(Λ2) ⊂ [−(R2 + η); R2 + η] we know 2(R2+η) that |F1| ≤ . As in the proof of Lemma 3.9 we find that Λ2 ⊂ F1Λ1. By δ1+2 2(R1+η) symmetry there is F2 ⊂ G with |F2|≤ such that Λ1 ⊂ F2Λ2.  R2−C(f2)+2 Our main result links properties of quasi-morphisms to whether the quasi-kernel is a Meyer subset or not. Proposition 3.11. Let G be a finitely generated group and let f : G → R be a homogeneous quasi-morphism. Choose a real number R > C(f). If the approximate subgroup f −1([−R; R]) is a Meyer subset then f is a group homomorphism. Proof. If f is bounded, then f = 0. So assume that f is unbounded. Take R′ > C(f) such that f −1([−R′; R′]) generates G. We know that f −1([−R′; R′]) is an approximate subgroup (Lemma 3.9) and a Meyer subset (Lemma 3.10). By Propo- sition 3.5 there is an integer n ≥ 1 such that there are a good model f0 : G → H −1 ′ ′ of some power, say n, of f ([−R ; R ]) with dense image. In particular, f0 is a good model of Λ := f −1([−n(R′ + C(f)); n(R′ + C(f))]) according to Lemma 3.10. Since f0(G) is dense in H we have that f0(Λ) is a neighbourhood of the identity. So the subgroup generated by the compact set f0(Λ) is open and contains f0(G), hence equals H. The group H is thus compactly generated. We will now show that f = cf0 for some real number c> 0. We start with two claims: 16 GOOD MODELS

−1 −1 Claim 3.4.1. The set of commutators {h1h2h1 h2 |h1,h2 ∈ H} is relatively com- pact.

−1 By Lemma 3.10 the approximate subgroup f0(f ([−3C(f); 3C(f)])) is com- −1 mensurable to f0(Λ). So K := f0(f ([−3C(f); 3C(f)])) is compact. Take now −1 −1 −1 −1 γ1,γ2 ∈ G. We have |f(γ1γ2γ1 γ2 )| ≤ 3C(f), hence f0(γ1γ2γ1 γ2 ) ∈ K. But −1 −1 f0(G) is dense in H so we find {h1h2h1 h2 |h1,h2 ∈ H}⊂ K.

Claim 3.4.2. Let γ0 ∈ G be such that f(γ0) > 0. Then there is a compact subset K ⊂ H such that for all γ ∈ G we have f0(γ) ⊂ hf0(γ0)iK where hf0(γ0)i is the subgroup generated by f0(γ0). −1 Write R0 := f(γ0), then the subset f ([−R0 − C(f); R0 + C(f)]) is commen- surable to Λ by Lemma 3.10. As above, we find that the subset −1 K := f0(f ([−R0 − C(f); R0 + C(f)])) is compact. But for any γ ∈ G there is an integer l such that |f(γ) − lf(γ0)|≤ R0 −l so γ0 γ ∈ K. Now all conjugacy classes of H are relatively compact according to Claim 3.4.1. So we can find a compact normal subgroup K ⊂ H and non-negative integers k,l such that H/K ≃ Rk ×Zl (see [44]). We will show that k+l ≤ 1. Let p : H → H/K denote the natural projection. Then the group homomorphism p ◦ f0 has dense image and p ◦ f0(Λ) is relatively compact. If H/K is compact then H/K ≃ {e}. Otherwise we can find γ0 ∈ G \ Λ so f(γ0) ≥ R > 0. According to Claim 3.4.2 every γ ∈ G satisfies p ◦ f0(γ) ∈ hp ◦ f0(γ0)iL where L is some compact subset of H/K. Therefore hp ◦ f0(γ0)i is an infinite cyclic co-compact subgroup, and, hence, −1 k + l ≤ 1. Choose a neighbourhood U ⊂ H of the identity such that f0 (U) ⊂ Λ. Since K is a compact subgroup of H and the subgroup f0(G) is dense we can find an integer m ≥ 0 such that K ⊂ f(Λm)U. Then V := p(U) ⊂ H/K is such that −1 −1 −1 m+2 f0 (p (V )) ⊂ f0 (UK) ⊂ Λ . m+2 So p◦f0 is a good model of Λ with image dense in R or Z. Since f is unbounded and f(Λm+2) is bounded, we can find γ ∈ G \ Λm+2, implying f(γ) 6= 0 and p ◦ f0(γ) 6= 0. The map

fˆ : g 7→ f(γ)p ◦ f0(g) − p ◦ f0(γ)f(g) is therefore well-defined and a homogeneous quasi-morphism with fˆ(γ) = 0. More- over, any set commensurable to Λ has bounded image by fˆ. Take g ∈ G, there is n ∈ Z such that |f(g) − nf(γ)| ≤ f(γ). This implies that G = hγif −1([−C(f) − f(γ); f(γ) + C(f)]). But f −1([−C(f) − f(γ); f(γ) + C(f)]) is commensurable to Λ according to Lemma 3.10, and, hence, is mapped to a bounded set by fˆ. So fˆ must have bounded image and therefore must be trivial. In other words f(γ) f = p ◦ f0.  p◦f0(γ)

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Recall that w is a non-trivial reduced word of length l in F2 the free group over {a,b} and suppose that w∈ / {a,b,a−1,b−1,e}. According to [14, §3.(a)] the map

fw :F2 −→ R g 7−→ o(g, w) − o(g, w−1) GOOD MODELS 17 is a symmetric quasi-morphism with C(fw) ≤ 3(l − 1). Moreover, fw is within bounded distance of a unique homogeneous quasi-morphism, f˜w say, that is not a group homomorphism. But according to Lemma 3.9 the set −1 −1 g ∈ F2 |o(g, w) − o(g, w )|≤ 3l = fw ([−3l;3l)]) is an approximate subgroup. Moreover, by Lemma 3.10 it is commensurable to ˜−1 ˜ ˜ −1 fw ([−C(fw) − 1; C(fw) + 1]). So if g ∈ F2 |o(g, w) − o(g, w )|≤ 3l is a Meyer subset, then f˜−1([−C(f˜ ) − 1; C(f˜ ) + 1]) is a Meyer subset, and, hence, f˜ is a w w w w group homomorphism according to Proposition 3.11. A contradiction.  Proposition 3.11 combined with [14, §3.(a)] in fact proves that any ultra-power of −1 −1 −1 the approximate subgroup g ∈ F2 |o(g, w) − o(g, w )|≤ 3l with w∈{ / a,b,a ,b ,e} is not a Meyer subset. Which means that it is not commensurable to an approxi-  mate subgroup that has a good model. In particular, this seems to contradict that “even without the definable amenability assumption a suitable Lie model exists” conjectured in [31, p. 57]. It is interesting to note that another counter-example to this conjecture is given in [26] and that it is also built thanks to Brooks’ quasi- morphisms. Finally, we give a proof of Lemma 3.8:

Proof of Lemma 3.8. Let w be a reduced word of length l in F2 the free group over −1 −1 {a,b} and suppose that w∈{ / a,b,a ,b ,e}. Let fw be as in the proof of Theorem −1 2 1.3. Define Λn := fw ([−6ln;6ln]) for all n ≥ 0. One checks that Λn ⊂ Λ3n and that K left translates of Λn cover Λ3n for some K independent of n (Lemma 3.10). −1 k k So the sequence of subsets (Λk)k≥0 defined by Λk := n≥0 fw ([−6ln/3 ;6ln/3 ]) is made of well-defined approximate subgroups commensurable to Λ /U (see Q n≥0 n e.g. [12, App. A]). Besides Λ2 ⊂ Λ for all k ≥ 1 since U is non-principal. So k k−1 Q n≥0 Λn/U has a good model according to Theorem 3.4. However, for all n ≥ 0, Λn is not a Meyer subset according to Theorem 1.3.  Q 3.5. Good models and cut-and-project schemes. In this section we relate the good models introduced in Definition 1 to the non-commutative cut-and-project schemes (see Definition 3). Note that when the ambient group is abelian, Meyer was the first to notice the striking link between cut-and-project schemes and some large approximate subgroups (see [32] and [38] for this and more). Lemma 3.12. Let Λ be a discrete approximate subgroup of a locally compact group G and let Γ be a group that contains it. If (Λ, Γ) has a good model f :Γ → H, then the graph of f defined by Γf := {(γ,f(γ))|γ ∈ Γ} is a discrete subgroup of G × H. Proof. Choose a neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ H such that f −1(U) ⊂ Λ (Definition 1) and an open set V ⊂ G such that V ∩ Λ= {e}. For γ ∈ Γ we know that (γ,f(γ)) ∈ V × U implies f(γ) ∈ U, hence γ ∈ Λ. But γ ∈ V , so γ = e and we find Γf ∩ (V × U)= {e}.  An easy consequence of Lemma 3.12, in the spirit of [4, Proposition 2.3, (iv)], asserts that the graph of a good model of an approximate subgroup Λ has finite co-volume as soon as Λ itself has finite co-volume. Namely: Proposition 3.13. Let Λ be a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup of a locally compact group G. Suppose that Λ has a good model. If there is a Borel subset F 18 GOOD MODELS of G with finite Haar measure such that F Λ = G then Λ is contained in and commensurable to a model set. ∞ Proof. Let f :Λ → H be a good model and let Γf ⊂ G × H be the graph of f. Define W0 := f(Λ). Then Γf is discrete by Lemma 3.12. Moreover, we know that −1 for all (g,h) ∈ G×H there is γ1 ∈ Γf such that (g,h)γ1 ∈ G×W0. By assumption −1 −1 we have γ2 ∈ Γf ∩ (G × W0) such that pG((g,h)γ1 γ2 ) ∈ F . Therefore, we know −1 that (g,h) ∈ F × W0W0 Γf . SoΓf is a lattice in G × H. Hence, Λ is contained in and commensurable to the model set Λ ker(f)= P (G, H, Γ , W ). 
0 f 0 Proposition 3.13 is relevant to the study of strong approximate lattices thanks to the following: Proposition 3.14 ([29]). Let Λ be strong approximate lattice in a second countable locally compact group G. Then there is a Borel subset F of G with finite Haar measure such that F Λ= G. The proof of Proposition 3.14 is based on the study of periodization maps. Given a bounded Borel function f : G → R with compact support one defines the peri- odization P(f):ΩΛ → R by X 7→ x∈X f(x) (see [4, 29] for this and more). If 2 −1 f = 1V is the indicator of a subset such that Λ ∩ V V = {e} one can check 1 1 V P that P( V ) = U V where U is one of the basic open subsets of the Chabauty- Fell topology defined in Subsection 2.2. By taking the push-forward of any proper G-invariant Borel probability measure ν one can therefore relate the Haar measure of such V with the ν-measure of U V . One can then argue that any Borel subset F ⊂ G such that F −1F ∩ Λ2 = {e} and F Λ2 = G has finite measure (see [29] for details). Proof of Proposition 1.1. Assume that Λ is a model set. Let (G, H, Γ) be a cut- and-project scheme and let W0 be a neighbourhood of the identity W0 ⊂ H such that P0(G, H, Γ, W0) = Λ (Definition 3). Denote by pG : G × H → G and pH : G × H → H the natural maps. The map (pG)|Γ is injective and

Λ= P0(G, H, Γ, W0)= pG ((G × W0) ∩ Γ) . But −1 −1 pG ((G × W0) ∩ Γ) = pH ◦ (pG)|Γ (W0) where we think of (pG)|Γ as a bijective map from Γ to pG(Γ). We know that ∞ Λ ⊂ pG(Γ), so set τ :Λ∞ → H −1 γ 7→ pH ◦ (pG)|Γ (γ).

Then τ is a group homomorphism, W0 is a symmetric relatively compact neigh- −1 bourhood of the identity and τ (W0)=Λ. So τ is a good model of Λ. Conversely, there is a Borel subset F ⊂ G with finite Haar-measure such that F Λ = G (Proposition 3.14). But Λ has a good model so it is contained in and commensurable to a model set by Proposition 3.13. 

Remark 3.3. Note that the map τ introduced in the first part of the proof of Proposition 1.1 is well-known in the abelian setting and is called the star-map (see for instance [2, §7.2]). GOOD MODELS 19

Remark 3.4. With Λ as in Proposition 3.13 we can find an approximate subgroup Λmin commensurable to Λ such that for any approximate subgroup Ξ commensu- ∞ ∞ ∞ rable to Λ we have that Λmin ∩ Ξ has finite index in Λmin. The approximate subgroup Λmin is related to the minimal model set of Λ from part (1) of Proposi- tion 3.6. Indeed, take a model set Λ := P0(G, H, Γ, W0) such that H is a connected Lie group. Then Λ has finite co-volume in G by Proposition 3.14. So take any Ξ commensurable to Λ, then Ξ2 ∩ Λ2 has finite co-volume. But then, by the Baire category theorem, the projection of Ξ2 ∩ Λ2 to H generates a dense subgroup. So according to Proposition 3.13 the subgroup Γ′ of Γ it generates is a lattice in G×H. Hence, Γ′ has finite index in Γ. In particular, one can prove that the commensura- tor of Λ (i.e. the group of elements γ such that γΛγ−1 is commensurable to Λ) is ∞ equal to the commensurator of Λmin. Similarly, for approximate subgroups Λ not necessarily of finite co-volume but in an ambient group Λ∞ that admits a good definition of rank (e.g. torsion-free finitely generated abelian or nilpotent groups, or more generally polycyclic groups) ∞ defining Λmin commensurable to Λ with Λmin of minimal rank gives rise to an approximate subgroup with similar properties (see e.g. [27]). Question 1. Can one define a suitable minimal approximate subgroup in more general commensurability classes of approximate subgroups?

4. A closed-approximate-subgroup theorem We give in this section a proof of Theorem 1.4 and investigate some applications. 4.1. Globalisation in Hausdorff Topological Groups. We start by proving a general form of Theorem 1.4. Theorem 4.1. Let Λ be a compact approximate subgroup of a Hausdorff topolog- ical group G. There is a locally compact group H, an injective continuous group homomorphism φ : H → G and a compact symmetric neighbourhood of the identity V that generates H such that φ(V )=Λ2. The key observation needed to prove Theorem 4.1 is the fact that locally a closed approximate subgroup behaves like a group. Lemma 4.2. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup of a locally compact group G and let Ξ be a subset covered by finitely many left-translates of Λ. There is a neighbourhood of the identity U(Ξ) ⊂ G such that : Ξ ∩ U(Ξ) ⊂ Λ2 ∩ U(Ξ). Proof. Choose a finite subset F ⊂ G such that Ξ ⊂ F Λ. Define the open subset

U := G \ fΛ .   f∈F,f[∈ /Λ Since e ∈ fΛ implies f ∈ Λ−1 = Λ, the subset U contains the identity. We thus have U ∩ Ξ ⊂ U ∩ F Λ ⊂ fΛ f∈F,f[∈Λ ⊂ Λ2. 20 GOOD MODELS



Lemma 4.2 asserts that the restriction of the group operations of G to some neighbourhood of the identity in Λ gives rise to a structure of a local topological group. But it is well-known that a local topological group Ω with a continuous embedding into a global group H can be globalised, and that the procedure gives rise to a topological group structure on the subgroup of H generated by the image of Ω (see [35, 22] for this and more on local groups). The language of good models, and Theorem 3.4 in particular, can be used to achieve the same result for the whole of Λ (more precisely the pair (Λ, Γ)) instead of an open subset of Λ - thus proving Theorem 4.1. Unsurprisingly, the globalisation procedure is similar in spirit to the proof below (i.e. we use the existing topology on Λ to build a topology on the group it generates that is more relevant than the induced topology). Proof of Theorem 4.1. For all γ ∈ Γ let U(γ) be the neighbourhood of the identity such that γΛ4γ−1 ∩ U(γ) ⊂ Λ2 (Lemma 4.2). Choose a neighbourhood basis for the identity B made of closed subsets in G and define BΛ as the family of subsets 2 −1 {Λ ∩ U U|U ∈ B}. The subsets in BΛ are all contained in and commensurable to Λ2 by Lemma 2.2. Take any U ∈B and any γ ∈ Γ and choose V ∈B such that γ(V −1V )2γ−1 ⊂ U(γ) ∩ U. Then 2 γ V −1V ∩ Λ2 γ−1 ⊂ γ(V −1V )2γ−1 ∩ γΛ4γ−1 4 −1
⊂ U(γ) ∩ U ∩ γΛ γ ⊂ U ∩ Λ2.

So BΛ checks all conditions of (3) of Theorem 3.4. 2 Choose a good model f :Γ → H of (Λ , Γ) with dense image and such that BΛ is a neighbourhood basis for the identity in the initial topology ((4) of Theorem 3.4). We know the family {f(Ξ)|Ξ ∈BΛ} is a neighbourhood basis for the identity in H and ker(f) = Ξ ⊂ U −1U = {e}. Take λ ∈ Λ2 and take any U ∈ B Ξ∈BΛ U∈B with U −1U ⊂ U(e). Then T T Λ2 ∩ λU −1U = λ(λ−1Λ2 ∩ U −1U) ⊂ λ(Λ4 ∩ U −1U)= λ(Λ2 ∩ U −1U), 2 so the restriction of f to Λ is a continuous map. Hence, {f(Ξ)|Ξ ∈ BΛ} = 2 {f(Ξ)|Ξ ∈ BΛ} is a neighbourhood basis for the identity in H. Since f(Λ ) has non-empty interior and f(Γ) is dense in H, we find f(Γ) = f(Γ)f(Λ2) = H. So −1 −1 f is bijective. But for all Ξ ∈ BΛ we have f (f(Ξ)) = Ξ. So f : H → G is a continuous one-to-one group homomorphism and Λ2 is the image of the compact neighbourhood of the identity f(Λ2).  We can now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.4. This result is akin to Cartan’s closed-subgroup theorem as it shows that closed approximate subgroups of Lie groups have a Lie group structure, at least locally. In particular, it enables one to define - unambiguously - the Lie algebra associated to a closed approximate sub- group of a Lie group. Note that this last fact could also be proved as a consequence of Lemma 4.2 and [11, Chapter III, §8, Prop. 2]. Proof of Theorem 1.4. Apply Theorem 4.1 to (Λ2 ∩ V 2, Λ∞) where V is any sym- metric compact neighbourhood of the identity in G. This yields an injective contin- uous group homomorphism φ : H → G with image Λ∞ and such that φ−1(Λ2 ∩ V 2) is a compact neighbourhood of the identity. By the Baire category theorem φ−1(Λ) GOOD MODELS 21 has non-empty interior. The approximate subgroup φ−1(Λ) is therefore contained in the interior of φ−1(Λ3) and commensurable to the approximate subgroup defined as the interior of φ−1(Λ2). We have moreover that for any K ⊂ G compact the subset K ∩ Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of Λ2 ∩ V 2. So φ−1(K ∩ Λ) is compact and φ is proper. If moreover G is a Lie group, then that H is a Lie group is a consequence of [11, Chapter III, §8, Corollary 1]. 

We will use Lemma 4.2 and the point of view of local groups once more later on in Section 5 to define - at least locally - the quotient of an ambient group by a closed approximate subgroup. This will then enable us to build local Borel sections of closed approximate subgroups (see Lemma 5.6).

4.2. Closed approximate subgroups of Euclidean spaces. As a first conse- quence we investigate the structure of closed approximate subgroups of Euclidean spaces: Proposition 4.3. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup of Rn. There are two n vector subspaces Vo and Vd of R , a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup Λd ⊂ n Vd and a compact approximate subgroup K ⊂ Vd such that Vo ⊕ Vd = R and Λ is commensurable to Vo +Λd + K. Furthermore:

(1) there is a vector subspace Ve ⊂ Vd such that we can choose K to be any 2 compact open neighbourhood of the identity in Ve and Ve ∩ Λd = {0}; m (2) there are a non-negative integer m, a linear map φ : R → Vd, a sub- ′ m ′ space Vd ⊂ R with Vd ∩ ker(φ) = {e} such that Λd is contained in and m ′ m commensurable to φ (Z ∩ (Vd + [−1; 1] )). Proof. Note first that a theorem of Schreiber asserts that for any approximate subgroup Ξ in a vector space V there is a vector subspace V ′ ⊂ V and a compact neighbourhood of the identity K ⊂ V such that Ξ ⊂ V ′ + K and V ′ ⊂ Ξ+ K ([38, 20]) . A consequence of Schreiber’s theorem states that there exists a relatively compact subset K′ ⊂ Ξ4 that generates Ξ∞ ([27]). Let us quickly recall a proof. Take any ξ ∈ Ξ. By Schreiber’s theorem and since V ′ is connected we can produce −1 3 a sequence (ξi)1≤i≤r of elements of Ξ such that ξi+1ξi ∈ K , ξ1 = 0 and ξr = ξ . Hence, ξ belongs to the subgroup generated by Ξ2 ∩ K3. Now if F ⊂ V is a finite subset such that Ξ2 ⊂ F Ξ, then K3 ∩ F Ξ is a relatively compact subset contained in Ξ4 that generates Ξ. We start with three minor cases. Note that the first part of (1) is a consequence of Theorem 1.4 and the second part will follow naturally from our choice of Vo. Suppose now that Λ is uniformly discrete. Then Λ∞ is finitely generated, so Λ∞ ≃ Zd. Take a linear map φ : Rd → Rn such that the restriction of φ to Zd yields an isomorphism Λ∞ ≃ Zd. Then (2) is a consequence of Schreiber’s theorem in Rd (see e.g. [38, 27] for details). Suppose finally that Λ has non-empty interior. Then the interior of Λ2 is symmetric, contains the identity and is commensurable to Λ. Hence, it is an open approximate subgroup commensurable to Λ. Take V ′ and K as in Schreiber’s theorem and let W be any bounded neighbourhood of the identity. We know that K + K + W is covered by finitely many left-translates of Λ2. So V ′ + K ⊂ Λ+ K + K + W is covered by finitely many left-translates of Λ. But Λ ⊂ V ′ + K and K is covered by finitely many left-translates of W , so Λ and V ′ + W are commensurable. 22 GOOD MODELS

Let us go back to the general case. Let Vo be the maximal vector subspace covered by finitely many left-translates of Λ and take Vd any supplementary space. 2 Then Vo ∩ Λ is commensurable to Vo by Lemma 2.3. So Λ is commensurable to 2 n Vo + Vd ∩ Λ according to Lemma 2.3 again. Let i : L → R be the injective Lie 2 ′ group homomorphism given by Theorem 4.1 applied to Vd ∩ Λ and let Λ denote 2 0 the inverse image of Vd ∩ Λ . Let L denote the connected component of L, then L0 ≃ Rk. We have that (Λ′)2 ∩ L0 is an approximate subgroup with non-empty interior so it is commensurable to V ′ + W where V ′ ⊂ L0 is a vector subspace and 0 W is a compact neighbourhood of the identity in L . By construction of Vd we know that V ′ = {0}. So (Λ′)2 ∩ L0 is a compact neighbourhood of the identity in L0. But L is a torsion-free abelian Lie group and is moreover compactly generated according to the above discussion. Thus, L ≃ Rk ×Zl for some non-negative integers k,l. So we can identify L with a closed subgroup of Rk × Rl with L0 = Rk ×{0}. According to Schreiber’s theorem there is vector subspace V ⊂ Rk × Rl and a compact neighbourhood of the identity K ⊂ Rk × Rl such that Λ′ ⊂ V + K and V ⊂ Λ′ + K. But one can check that L0 ∩ V = {0}. So choose a vector subspace V ′ such that L0 ⊕ V ⊕ V ′ = Rk × Rl. The projection of L to V ⊕ V ′ parallel to L0 is then a discrete subgroup Γ ⊂ V ⊕ V ′ and we find L = L0 ⊕ Γ. Moreover, the projection of Λ′ to L0 is a bounded subset with non-empty interior. So we readily ′ ′ 2 ′ 2 0 check that Λ is commensurable to (Λ ) ∩ Γ+(Λ ) ∩ L . Since i|Λ′ is proper, this yields the desired result. 

The situation becomes even more striking when Λ is a closed approximate sub- group in a one dimensional Euclidean space: Corollary 4.4. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup of R. Then one and only one of the following is true: (1) Λ is finite; (2) there are real numbers 0

4.4. Bohr-type Compactification. We mention yet another application of The- orem 4.1 that generalises the Bohr compactification of a discrete group. GOOD MODELS 23

Proposition 4.5. Let Γ be a group that commensurate an approximate subgroup Λ ⊂ Γ. Then there is a group homomorphism f0 : Γ → H0 (unique up to continu- ′ ous group isomorphism H0 → H0) with f0(Λ) relatively compact that satisfies the following universal property: (∗) if f : Γ → H is an group homomorphism with H locally compact and f(Λ) relatively compact, then there is a continuous group homomorphism φ : H0 → H such that f = φ ◦ f0. Proof. Let R be a set of representatives of group homomorphisms f : Γ → H is an group homomorphism with H locally compact, dense image and f(Λ) relatively compact, up to the obvious equivalence. Then the group HR := f:Γ→H∈R H equipped with the product topology is a Hausdorff topological group and f (Λ) Q R is relatively compact where fR : Γ → HR is the diagonal map. One readily sees that fR satisfies the universal property (∗). The topological group HR need not be locally compact however. By Theorem 4.1 there are a locally compact group H0, a group homomorphism f0 : Γ → H0 and a continuous group homomorphism φ : H0 → HR such that fR = φ ◦ f0.  The above proposition can be interpreted as existence of a smallest Meyer sub- set containing a given approximate subgroup Λ. Given f0 :Γ → as in Proposition −1 2 2 4.5 set Λ0 := f0 (f0(Λ )). Note that by construction f0(Λ ) is a compact neigh- bourhood of the identity in H0. SoΛ0 is an approximate subgroup and has a good model. We see now that if Λ′ contains Λ and Λ has a good model f, then f must factor through f0. Therefore f(Λ0) is relatively compact and finitely many ′ left-translates of Λ cover Λ0. This discussion yields: Lemma 4.6. Let Γ be a group that commensurate an approximate subgroup Λ ⊂ Γ. Let f0 :Γ → H0 be as in Proposition 4.5. Then:

(1) Λ has a good model is and only if f0 is a good model; −1 (2) Λ is Meyer subset if and only if it is commensurable to f0 (f0(Λ)). 5. Amenable approximate subgroups 5.1. Definition and first properties. We start by defining a general notion of amenable approximate subgroups in locally compact groups. For a locally compact group G we denote by L∞(G) the space of essentially bounded Haar measurable functions where two functions that agree on Haar co-null subsets are identified. ∞ There is a natural left-action by left-translations of G on L (G) given by gf(·)= f(g−1·) for g ∈ G and f ∈ L∞(G). In addition, for a Haar measurable subset X ⊂ G define L∞(X) := {f ∈ L∞(G)|f = 0 on a Haar co-null subset.}. We see these spaces as normed vector spaces endowed with the usual norm || · ||∞. Definition 4. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup of a locally compact group G. We say that Λ is amenable if there exists m defined on L∞(Λ8) such that: ∞ 8 (1) (finiteness) m : L (Λ ) → R is a linear functional with m(1Λ) = 1; (2) (positivity) if f ∈ L∞(Λ8) is non-negative, then m(f) ≥ 0 ; 8 ∞ 8 ∞ 8 (3) (local left-invariance) for all λ ∈ Λ , φ ∈ L (Λ ) such that λφ ∈ L (Λ ) we have m(λφ)= m(φ). It is easy to check that a compact neighbourhood of the identity in some locally compact group is amenable, where the map m is given by integration against a 24 GOOD MODELS

Haar measure. This simple observation and Theorem 4.1 show that any compact approximate subgroup of a locally compact group is amenable. We will see later on (Proposition 5.5) that furthermore any closed approximate subgroup of an amenable group is amenable. Massicot and Wagner studied the related notion of definably amenable approxi- mate subgroups ([31, p.57]) where the measure m is defined on all maps definable on some language. Other objects closely related to Definition 4 are the near-subgroups defined by Hrushovski in [24]. In fact, every discrete amenable approximate sub- group is a near-subgroup and the study of near-subgroups in [24] yields - at least in the discrete case - the following striking and particularly useful result: Proposition 5.1. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup of a σ-compact locally compact group G. If Λ is amenable, then Λ4 has a good model. We give here an elementary and self-contained proof that also encompasses the non-discrete case. Our approach relies on Theorem 3.4 and a slight modification of an argument due to Massicot and Wagner in [31] inspired by Sanders [37], and Croot and Sisask [17], who proved it for abelian finite approximate groups. Lemma 5.2. Let Λ be an amenable closed approximate subgroup of a σ-compact locally compact group G and let m be a positive integer. There is an approximate subgroup S ⊂ Λ2 commensurable to Λ such that Sm ⊂ Λ4.

8 Proof. For any Haar measurable subset B ⊂ Λ define µ(B) := m(1B) where 1B denotes the indicator function. Let Ξ ⊂ Λ be Haar measurable such that µ(Ξ) ≥ tµ(Λ) for some t ∈ (0; 1]. Set X(Ξ) := {g ∈ Λ2|µ(gΞ ∩ Ξ) ≥ stµ(Λ)} t 1 where s = 2K . The approximate subgroup Λ is covered by at most N := ⌊ s ⌋ left translates of X(Ξ). Otherwise we could build inductively a sequence (gi)0≤i≤N such that gi ∈ Λ \ gjX(Ξ). This would mean j

Kµ(Λ) ≥ µ( giΞ) 0≤[i≤N ≥ (N + 1)µ(Ξ) − µ(giΞ ∩ gj Ξ) 0≤i (N + 1)tµ(Λ) − stµ(Λ) 2 N ≥ (1 − s )(N + 1)tµ(Λ) 2 ≥ Kµ(Λ). A contradiction. Set µ(ΞΛ) f(t) := inf Ξ ⊂ Λ closed, µ(Ξ) ≥ tµ(Λ) . µ(Λ)  

Note that f is well defined since the product of two σ-compact subsets is a σ- compact subset, hence Haar measurable. We also know that f(t) ∈ [1; K] for all GOOD MODELS 25

t2 1 t ≤ 1. Take t ≥ cK,m such that f( 2K ) ≥ (1 − 4m )f(t) (where we can choose 1 log(K) cK,m = 2n−1 with n = 1 −1 see e.g. [31, Lem. 11]) and choose (2K) log((1− 4m ) ) l m µ(ΛΞ) 1 Ξ ⊂ Λ closed such that µ(Ξ) ≥ tµ(Λ) and µ(Λ) ≥ (1 + 4m )f(t). We prove by 4 induction on k ≤ m that for g1,...,gk ∈ X(Ξ) we have g1 ··· gk ∈ Λ and k (∗) µ((g ··· g ΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) ≤ µ(ΞΛ). 1 k m 2 If k = 1, then g = g1 ∈ X(Ξ) ⊂ Λ . Furthermore, µ(gΞΛ ∩ ΞΛ) ≥ µ((gΞ ∩ Ξ)Λ) t2 ≥ f( )µ(Λ) 2K 1 ≥ (1 − )f(t)µ(Λ) 4m 1 1 − 4m ≥ 1 µ(ΞΛ). 1+ 4m Hence, 1 − 1 1 µ((gΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) ≤ 2 1 − 4m µ(ΞΛ) ≤ µ(ΞΛ). 1+ 1 m  4m  Suppose now that the statement is true for some k

µ((g1 ··· gk+1ΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) ≤ µ((g1 ··· gk+1ΞΛ) ∆ (g1 ··· gkΞΛ)) + µ((g1 ··· gkΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) k ≤ µ(g ··· g [(g ΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)]) + µ(ΞΛ). 1 k k+1 m 4 4 But g1 ··· gk ∈ Λ and both gk+1ΞΛ and ΞΛ are contained in Λ . Local left- invariance and the initialisation step thus imply, k k +1 µ((g ··· g ΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) ≤ µ((g ΞΛ)∆(ΞΛ)) + µ(ΞΛ) < µ(ΞΛ). 1 k+1 k+1 m m In particular, µ((g1 ··· gk+1ΞΛ) ∆ (ΞΛ)) < 2µ(ΞΛ), so g1 ··· gk+1ΞΛ ∩ ΞΛ 6= ∅ 4 m 4 2K which implies g1 ··· gk+1 ∈ Λ . As a consequence, X(Ξ) ⊂ Λ and ⌊ t ⌋ ≤ 4 log(K)m 2K +1 ≈ (2K)2 translates of X(Ξ) cover Λ.  cK,m As the above proof shows, the finitely additive measure µ need not be defined on all Haar measurable subsets, but only on a certain lattice of subsets generated by Λ, finite intersections of translates of Λ and certain products of such subsets. This observation leads to more general versions of Lemma 5.2 (in the spirit of [26]) and enables us to waive the assumption that G is σ-compact. We keep however with this version for the sake of simplicity. Before we move on to the proof of Proposition 5.1 we show one more lemma. Lemma 5.3. Let Λ and Ξ be closed approximate subgroups of some group. If Λ ⊂ Ξ2, Λ8 ⊂ Ξ8, Λ and Ξ are commensurable and Ξ is amenable, then Λ is amenable. 26 GOOD MODELS

Proof. We have Λ8 ⊂ Ξ8 so L∞(Λ8) ⊂ L∞(Ξ8). Take a mean m on Ξ8. Since Ξ is covered by left-translates (by elements of Ξ2) of Λ there is a finite subset F ⊂ Ξ3 1 1 1 1 1 such that Ξ ≤ f∈F fΛ. So α := m( Λ) > |F | m( Ξ) > 0 by local left-invariance. Therefore, α−1m satisfies the conditions of Definition 4.  P Proof of Proposition 5.1. By Lemma 5.2 there is a closed approximate subgroup 2 8 4 Λ1 ⊂ Λ commensurable to Λ and such that Λ1 ⊂ Λ . According to Lemma 5.3 the closed approximate subgroup Λ1 is amenable. We can thus build inductively a sequence of closed approximate subgroups (Λn)n≥0 commensurable to Λ such that 4 2 8 4 Λ0 = Λ and (Λn+1) ⊂ Λn+1 ⊂ Λn for all integers n ≥ 0. By Theorem 3.4 applied 4 4  to the sequence (Λn)n≥0 we obtain that Λ has a good model. 5.2. Approximate Subgroups in Amenable Groups. The proof of Theorem 1.7 consists of two steps. We first show that any neighbourhood of a normal amenable subgroup is an amenable approximate subgroup (Proposition 5.4). We then prove heredity of amenability for closed approximate subgroups (Proposition 5.5). Most of the proof of Proposition 5.4 consists in adapting classical material from the theory of amenable locally compact groups (as found in [23]) to our setting. Proposition 5.4. Let G be a locally compact group, let H be a closed amenable normal subgroup and let W ⊂ G be a compact symmetric neighbourhood of the identity. Then the approximate subgroup WH of G is amenable. Proof. Let us first recall some notations and definitions (see [23] for more details). Fix a left-Haar measure µG on G. Define the left- and right-translates of a function −1 f : G → R by g ∈ G as the maps gf : x 7→ f(g x) and fg : x 7→ f(xg) respectively. A function f : G → R is right-uniformly continuous if for any real number ǫ > 0 there is a neighbourhood U(ǫ) ⊂ G of the identity such that for all g ∈ U(ǫ) and x ∈ G we have |f(x) − f(gx)| <ǫ. The set of right-uniformly continuous bounded 0 functions on G will be denoted by Cb,ru(G). Likewise the set of continuous bounded functions (resp. continuous functions with compact support) on G will be denoted 0 0 by Cb (G) (resp. Cc (G)) . One readily checks that G acts continuously by left- 0 translations on the normed vector space Cb,ru(G) equipped with the norm || · ||∞. The convolution φ ∗ f of φ ∈ L1(G) and f ∈ L∞(G) is defined by φ ∗ f : G −→ R

−1 x 7−→ φ(t)f(t x)dµG(t). ZG 0 1 We have ||φ ∗ f||∞ ≤ ||φ||1||f||∞ and φ ∗ f ∈ Cb,ru(G). If moreover f ∈ L (G) then by Fubini ||φ ∗ f||1 ≤ ||φ||1||f||1. In addition, for any g ∈ G we have φ ∗ (gf) = −1 ∆(g )φg−1 ∗f (where ∆ : G → R is the modular function) and g (φ ∗ f) = (gφ)∗f. 0 A linear map F : X → R is said left-invariant if the subspace X ⊂ Cb,ru(G) is stable by the G-action and if for every g ∈ G and f ∈ X we have F (gf) = F (f). It is said positive is for all f ∈ X with f ≥ 0 we have F (f) ≥ 0. We can now proceed to the first step of the proof. The vector subspace of 0 Cb,ru(G) we want to consider is 0 X := {f ∈ Cb,ru(G)| p(supp(f)) is relatively compact.} where p : G → G/H is the natural projection. We will prove the following claim. GOOD MODELS 27

Claim 5.2.1. There exists a non-trivial left-invariant positive linear map m : X → R.

Fix µG/H a right-Haar measure on G/H. First of all, note that X is stable under the action of G. Since H is an amenable locally compact group there is a 0 left-invariant mean mH : Cb (H) → R according to [23, Theorem 2.2.1]. This means 0 that mH is a left-invariant positive linear functional such that for any f ∈ Cb (H) we have mH (f) ≤ ||f||∞ and mH (1H ) = 1. Take f ∈ X and consider the map

f˜ : G → R

x 7→ mH (xf)|H .
We will show that f˜ is continuous and invariant under left-translation by elements −1 −1 of H. Indeed, if h, x ∈ H and g ∈ G then hgf(x) = (gf)(h x). But h x ∈ H if and only if x ∈ H. So hgf|H =h gf|H , and, hence, for x ∈ G we have
˜ ˜ −1 ˜ hf(x)= f(h x)= mH h−1xf|H = mH h−1 xf|H = mH xf|H = f(x).



Moreover, for any x1, x2 ∈ G we have

˜ ˜ |f(x1) − f(x2)| = |mH (x1 f|H ) − mH (x2 f|H )| ≤ ||x1 f −x2 f||∞.

But f is right-uniformly continuous, so f˜ is continuous. Therefore, there exists a unique continuous function fG/H : G/H → R such that fG/H ◦ p (x)= mH (xf|H ) where p : G → G/H is the natural projection. One readily checks that the map
f 7→ fG/H is linear, sends non-negative functions to non-negative functions and 0 ||fG/H ||∞ ≤ ||f||∞ for all f ∈ Cb,ru(G) . Furthermore, we have supp(fG/H ) ⊂ p(supp(f)), so fG/H is a continuous function with compact support. We are thus able to define

m : X −→ R

f 7−→ fG/H (t)dµG/H (t). ZG/H The map m is a positive linear map. Choose a compact neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ G and f ∈ X such that f(x) = 1 for all x ∈ UH. Then for all x ∈ UH we have xf|H = 1, so fG/H (p(x)) = 1. This implies m(f) ≥ µG/H (p(U)) > 0 so m is non-trivial. It only remains to check that m is left-invariant. Take g, x ∈ G and f ∈ X. Then

(gf)G/H ◦ p (x)= mH ((x(gf))|H )
= mH ((xgf)|H ) = (fG/H ◦ p)(xg)

= fG/H (p(x)p(g)). 28 GOOD MODELS

Therefore, (gf)G/H = (fG/H )p(g). But µG/H is right-invariant so

m(gf)= (gf)G/H (t)dµG/H (t) ZG/H

= fG/H p(g) (t)dµG/H (t) ZG/H
= fG/H (t)dµG/H (t) ZG/H = m(f). So Claim 5.2.1 is proved. Let us move on to the second step. First define 0 P (G) := {f ∈Cc (G)|∀x ∈ G, f(x) ≥ 0, ||f||1 =1}. We will prove the following. Claim 5.2.2. Set Y ⊂ L∞(G) be the subspace of functions f supported on some Haar measurable subset B with p(B) is relatively compact. Then for any φ ∈ P (G) the map

mφ : Y −→ R f 7−→ m(φ ∗ f), is independent of φ and mφ is non-trivial, left-invariant and positive.

0 Note first of all that for all f ∈ Y and φ ∈ Cc (G) we have φ ∗ f ∈ X. So mφ is well-defined. It is moreover a positive linear functional since φ is assumed to take non-negative values. Take now f ∈ X that takes non-negative values and consider the linear functional 0 F : Cc (G) −→ R φ 7−→ m(φ ∗ f). Since f takes non-negative values and m is positive, the linear functional F is positive. By the Riesz–Markov–Kakutani representation theorem F is given by a regular Borel measure. We have moreover that for all g ∈ G,

F (gφ)= m((gφ) ∗ f)= m(g(φ ∗ f)) = m(φ ∗ f)= F (φ). So according to the Haar theorem there exists a constant k(f) ∈ R such that 0 F (φ)= k(f) G φ(t)dµG(t) for all non-negative functions φ ∈ Cc (G) where µG is a left-Haar measure. In particular, if φ , φ ∈ P (G) then m (f)= F (φ )= k(f)= R 1 2 φ1 1 F (φ2)= mφ2 (f). So mφ is independent of φ. Now take g ∈ G. Then −1 mφ(gf)= m(φ ∗g f)= m(∆(g )φg−1 ∗ f). −1 0 But ∆(g )φg−1 ∈ Cc (G) is non-negative and

−1 ∆(g )φg−1 (t)dµG(t)= φ(t)dµG(t)=1, ZG ZG −1 so ∆(g )φg−1 ∈ P (G). As a consequence,

m ( f)= m −1 (f)= m (f). φ g ∆(g )φg−1 φ GOOD MODELS 29

So it remains to prove that mφ is non-trivial. Let K be a compact subset that sup- 1 − ports φ and W be any compact neighbourhood of the identity. Then φ∗ K 1W H ≥ 1 1 − W H , hence mφ( K 1W H ) > 0. We can now conclude the proof of Proposition 5.4. Let W be any compact neighbourhood and φ ∈ P (G). It is easy to see that 1 m is as in Definition mφ(1W H ) φ 4. 

We will now prove the second step. Namely: Proposition 5.5. Let Λ and Ξ be two closed approximate subgroups of a first countable locally compact group G and suppose that Λ2 ⊂ Ξ. If Ξ is amenable, then Λ is amenable. We start with a lemma that is essentially about building a local section of ap- proximate subgroups. Lemma 5.6. Let Λ be a closed approximate subgroup in a first-countable locally compact group G. For any neighbourhood of the identity W of G, there is a Borel subset S ⊂ W such that SΛ2 has non-empty interior and S−1S ∩Λ2 = {e}. Suppose moreover that G is second-countable and take X ⊂ G, then there is a Borel subset S′ ⊂ XW with (S′)−1S′ ∩ Λ2 = {e} and X ⊂ S′Λ4. Proof. Let V be a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity with V 6 con- tained in the intersection of W and the open subset U(Λ8) given by Lemma 4.2. Define the relation ∼ on V by g ∼ h if and only if g ∈ hΛ2. We have that ∼ is reflexive and symmetric because e ∈ Λ2 and Λ2 is symmetric. In addition, 2 4 given g1,g2,g3 ∈ V such that g1 ∼ g2 and g2 ∼ g3 we have g1 ∈ g2Λ ⊂ g3Λ . −1 4 2 2 So g3 g1 ∈ Λ ∩ V ⊂ Λ , which yields g1 ∼ g3. Hence, ∼ is an equivalence relation. Write Y the quotient space V/ ∼ endowed with the quotient topol- ogy and let q : V → Y be the quotient map. Take any subset X ⊂ V then q−1(q(X)) = XΛ2 ∩ V . In particular, points of Y are closed, Y is compact and normal. So Y is a compact metrizable space and q is a continuous map. Now by a theorem of Federer and Morse [18] there is a Borel subset S ⊂ V such that q|S is bijective i.e. S−1S ∩ Λ2 = {e} and V ⊂ SΛ2. Now, since G is second countable there is a sequence (gn)n≥0 of elements of X 2 with g0 = e such that (gnSΛ )n≥0 covers X. Define inductively S0 = S and

2 Sn+1 = gn+1S \ SmΛ ⊂ XW m[≤n for all n ≥ 0. We claim that Sn is a Borel subset for all n ≥ 0. If n = 0 the result is clear. We proceed now by induction on n. By assumption Sm is a Borel subset for all m

Proof of Proposition 5.5. Let φ : H → G be the map given by Theorem 4.1. We −1 know that φφ−1(Ξ8) is an homeomorphism onto its image. So φ (Ξ) is amenable as well and we can assume that Ξ has non-empty interior in G. Take a Borel section S given by Lemma 5.6 applied to the approximate subgroup Λ8, the subset X = Ξ and W ⊂ Ξ2, and set S′ = S−1. We have Ξ ⊂ Λ32S′ and Λ8S′ ⊂ Ξ8. In addition, the multiplication map Λ8 × S′ → Λ8S′ is a bijective measurable map, hence its inverse is Borel. So projecting to the first factor in Λ8 × S′ gives rise to a Borel measurable map l : Λ8S′ → Λ8 such that for any g ∈ Λ8S′ we have l(g)−1g ∈ S′. Take f ∈ L∞ Λ8 and consider the map Φ(f) ∈ L∞ Ξ8 defined 8 1 ′     by Φ(f) := Λ8S · f ◦ l. Note that for any Borel subset B ⊂ Λ we have

(∗) Φ(1B)= 1BS′ .

But Φ is positive, so m ◦ Φ has norm ≤ 1. Equation (∗) also shows that λΦ(χ) = ∞ 8 8 Φ(λχ) when χ ∈ L (Λ ) is an indicator function, and we have λ ∈ Λ and λχ ∈ ∞ 8 ∞ 8 8 ∞ 8 L (Λ ). So λΦ(f)=Φ(λf) for all f ∈ L (Λ ) and λ ∈ Λ such that λf ∈ L (Λ ) 32 ′ by a density argument. We know moreover that Φ(1Λ) = 1ΛS′ and that Λ S contains Ξ. But Λ and Λ32 are commensurable, so we can find a finite subset F ⊂ ΞS′−1Λ ⊂ Ξ4Λ such that Ξ ⊂ F ΛS′ ⊂ Ξ8. By local left-invariance of m we −1 find α := m(Φ(1Λ)) > 0. As a conclusion, the mean f 7→ α m ◦ Φ(f) makes Λ into an amenable closed approximate subgroup. 

Proof of Theorem 1.7. We have that Λ2 is contained in W 2H. But W 2H is amenable 4 by Proposition 5.4. So Λ is amenable by Proposition 5.5. Hence, Λ has a good model according to Proposition 5.1. 

Corollary 5.7. Let G be an amenable second countable locally compact group. If Λ ⊂ G is a closed approximate subgroup, then Λ is amenable. Proof. Corollary 5.7 is a consequence of Theorem 1.7 applied to G and H = G. 

Corollary 5.8. If Λ is an approximate subgroup of a countable discrete amenable group G, then Λ is amenable. Proof. The group G equipped with the discrete topology is an amenable locally compact group. Moreover, Λ is obviously a uniformly discrete approximate sub- group in this topology. So Corollary 5.8 is a consequence of Corollary 5.7. 

Proof of Theorem 1.8. Since Λ is uniformly discrete it is amenable by Corollary 5.7 and so the approximate subgroup Λ4 =Λ4 has a good model, f say, by Proposition 5.1. If Λ is a uniform approximate lattice, then Λ4 is a uniform approximate lattice. Similarly, if Λ is a strong approximate lattice, then Λ4 is a strong approximate lattice by [8, 2.11]. Thus, the approximate subgroup Λ4 ker(f) is a model set by Proposition 1.1. But Λ4 ⊂ Λ4 ker(f) ⊂ Λ8. 

5.3. Consequences and questions. We gather in this subsection various conse- quences of the above results. Proposition 5.9. Let Λ be a strong or uniform approximate lattice in a connected amenable Lie group. Then there is Λ′ ⊂ Λ4 commensurable to Λ that has a good model f :Λ∞ → H with target a connected amenable Lie group. GOOD MODELS 31

Proof. According to Corollary 5.7 and Proposition 5.1 there is a good model of Λ4. In addition, there is an approximate subgroup Λ′ ⊂ Λ4 commensurable to Λ such that Λ′ has a good model f : (Λ′)∞ → H with dense image and target a connected Lie group according to Lemma 3.3. By Proposition 1.1 the graph of f, denoted by Γf , is a lattice in G × H. Let A denote the amenable radical (i.e. the maximal normal amenable closed subgroup) of H. Then G × A is the amenable radical of G × H. Let p : G × H → H/A be the natural map. By [21, Corollary 1.4] the image p(Γf ) is a discrete subgroup of H/A. We can therefore choose a compact neighbourhood of the identity U ⊂ H with f −1(U) ⊂ Λ′ and sufficiently small so −1 that Γf ∩ (G × U) ⊂ G × A. But f(f (U)) contains the interior of U since f has dense image. So the interior of U is contained in A which implies that A = H because H is connected. Thus, the map f : (Λ′)∞ → H is a good model of Λ′ with dense image and target a connected amenable Lie group.  We pursue this strategy in the context of S-adic Lie groups (i.e. locally a finite product of real and p-adic Lie groups, see e.g. [3]) as this shows that approximate lattices are uniform: Proposition 5.10. Let Λ be an approximate lattice in an amenable S-adic Lie group G. Then Λ is a uniform approximate lattice. Proof. There are Ξ commensurable to Λ and f : Ξ∞ → H a good model of Ξ with dense image and target a connected Lie group without non-trivial normal compact subgroups by Theorem 1.7. Since G is amenable, we know that Λ is a strong approximate lattice ([4, Rem. 4.14.(1)]). So the graph Γf ⊂ G × H of f is a lattice by Proposition 1.1 and there is a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity W0 ⊂ H such that Ξ := P0(G, H, Γf , W0). Since G is normal, closed and amenable we know by [3, Th. 6.6] that there is closed normal subgroup H′ ⊂ H ′ ′ ′ such that Γ := Γf ∩ G × H is a uniform lattice in G × H . So Ξ contains the ′ ′ ′ uniform approximate lattice P0(G, H , Γ , W0 ∩ H ). Hence, Λ is uniform.  As another consequence, we prove finite generation of discrete approximate sub- groups of soluble Lie groups. Proposition 5.11. Let R be a connected soluble Lie group. If Λ ⊂ R is a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup, then Λ∞ is finitely generated. Proof. According to Corollary 5.8 and Proposition 5.1 the approximate subgroup Λ4 has a good model. According to Lemma 3.3 there is an approximate subgroup Λ′ ⊂ Λ4 that has a good model f : (Λ′)∞ → H with dense image and target a connected Lie group. Since (Λ′)∞ is soluble we obtain that H is soluble. Now, the graph of f, denoted by Γf , is a discrete subgroup of the connected soluble Lie group R × H and therefore Γf is finitely generated by [36, Proposition 3.8]. Let ′ ′ ∞ ∞ F1 ⊂ Λ be a finite set of generators of (Λ ) and F2 ⊂ Λ be a finite subset such ′ ∞ that Λ ⊂ F2Λ . Then F1 ∪ F2 is a finite set that generates Λ .  Other generalisations of classical results would be interesting to investigate. We mention a few here: Question 2. Let Λ be an amenable approximate subgroup. Does Λ2 always have an amenable good model? Can one find a mean that is “globally” left-invariant? Are amenable approximate subgroups stable with respect to the usual set operations (e.g. direct limits)? 32 GOOD MODELS

6. Generalisation of theorems of Mostow and Auslander 6.1. Intersections of approximate lattices and closed subgroups. We will show a general theorem about intersections of approximate lattices and closed sub- groups. Proposition 6.1 is close in spirit to a classical fact about lattices (see for instance [36, Theorem 1.13]). See also [5] for other results around this topic in the framework of strong (and) uniform approximate lattices .

Proposition 6.1. Let Λ be a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup of a locally compact group G. Assume that H is a closed subgroup of G such that p(Λ) is locally finite where p : G → G/H is the natural map. We have:

(1) if Λ is a uniform approximate lattice, then Λ2 ∩H is a uniform approximate lattice in H; (2) if Λ is a strong approximate lattice in G second countable and H is normal, then there is a proper H-invariant Borel probability measure on ΩP ∩H for some P ∈ ΩΛ; (3) if Λ is a strong approximate lattice in G second countable and H is normal and amenable, then Λ2 ∩ H is a strong approximate lattice in H.

Proof. We will first prove (1). We know that Λ2 ∩ H is an approximate subgroup according to Lemma 2.3. Moreover, since Λ is uniformly discrete so is Λ2 ∩ H. We must prove that Λ2 ∩ H is relatively dense in H. Let K ⊂ G be a compact subset such that KΛ = G. Since p(Λ) is locally finite there is F ⊂ Λ finite such that K−1H ∩ Λ ⊂ FH. Take any h ∈ H then there are λ ∈ Λ and k ∈ K such that kλ = h. Which implies λ ∈ K−1H ∩ Λ and we can find f ∈ F such that f −1λ ∈ H ∩ Λ2. Therefore, h ∈ KF H ∩ Λ2 . Let us move on to the proof of (2). Again, note that Λ2 ∩H is uniformly discrete
and is an approximate subgroup according to Lemma 2.3. Fix a proper G-invariant Borel probability measure ν0 on ΩΛ. Let P(ΩΛ,H) denote the set of H-invariant Borel probability measures. Since ν0 ∈ P(ΩΛ,H) and is proper, we have by the usual Krein–Millman argument that there exists ν1 ∈ P(ΩΛ,H) which is ergodic and proper. Then ν1 is a Borel probability measure on the compact metrizable space ΩΛ, so ν1 has a well-defined support K. The compact subset K is H-invariant with ν1(K) = 1 and for any open subset U ⊂ ΩΛ we have ν1(U ∩ K) = 0 if and only if U ∩ K = ∅. Thus, according to e.g. [46, Proposition 2.1.7], there is P1 ∈ K such that K = H · P1. Furthermore, P1 6= ∅ since H ·∅ = {∅} and ν1({∅}) = 0. Choose −1 2 now p1 ∈ P1. Then e ∈ p1 P1 ⊂ Λ by [4, Lemma 4.6]. Moreover, the subgroup H −1 is normal so ν2 := p1 ∗ ν1 is an H-invariant ergodic Borel probability measure with ν ({∅}) = 0 and support p−1K = H · P where P = p−1P . Define the map 2
1 2 2 1 1

π : H · P2 −→ C(H) P 7−→ P ∩ H.

We see that π is H-equivariant. We claim moreover that π is continuous. Since p(Λ2) is locally finite we know that there is an open subset U ⊂ G such that 2 2 Λ H ∩ U = H. Note in addition that p(P ) ⊂ p(Λ ) for all P ∈ H · P2. So for any GOOD MODELS 33 open subset V ∈ G we have π−1(U V )= π−1({X ∈C(H)|X ∩ V 6= ∅})

= {P ∈ H · P2|P ∩ (U ∩ W ) 6= ∅} U∩W = U ∩ H · P2, where W ⊂ G is any open subset such that H ∩ W = V . Likewise for any compact subset L ⊂ H we have

−1 −1 π (UL)= π ({X ∈C(H)|X ∩ L = ∅})

= {P ∈ H · P2|P ∩ L = ∅}

= UL ∩ H · P2, where we consider L ⊂ H ⊂ G. So π is indeed a continuous map. Thus, π(H · P2) is a compact subset of C(H) and π(P2)= P2 ∩ H has dense orbit in π(H · P2). So π(H · P )=Ω . Set ν := π (ν ) where (ν ) is the restriction of 2 P2∩H 3 ∗ 2 |H·P2 2 |H·P2 the measure ν2 to its support H ·P2 which is a well defined H-invariant ergodic Borel probability measure since ΩΛ is metric compact. Then ν3 is a H-invariant ergodic Borel probability measure on ΩP2∩H . Suppose now that ν3({∅}) > 0, then −1 ν3({∅}) = 1 by ergodicity. Thus, π ({∅}) is an H-invariant compact co-null −1 subset of H · P2. Which means π ({∅}) = H · P2 because H · P2 is the support of ν2. Therefore π(P2)= ∅. A contradiction. Hence, ν3({∅})=0 so ν3 is a proper

H-invariant Borel probability measure on ΩP2∩H . Finally, if H is amenable we know according to (the proof of) [8, Corollary 2.11] 2 that the approximate subgroup Λ ∩ H ⊃ P2 ∩ H is a strong approximate lattice in H. 

Remark 6.1. We use Proposition 6.1 in the companion paper [29] to define and study a notion of irreducibility for approximate lattices. In the language of [29], part (2) reduces to showing that Λ2 ∩ H is a ⋆-approximate lattice, a notion close to the one of strong approximate lattice. We prove next a converse of sorts of Proposition 6.1: Lemma 6.2. Let Λ be a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup of a locally com- pact group G. Assume that H is a closed subgroup of G such that Λ2 ∩ H is a uniform approximate lattice in H. Then p(Λ) is a locally finite subset of G/H where p : G → G/H is the natural map. Proof. Let K ⊂ G/H be a compact subset. Then there is a compact subset L ⊂ G such that p(L)= K. Since Λ2 ∩H is relatively dense in H there is a compact subset L′ ⊂ G such that LH ⊂ L′ Λ2 ∩ H . Take λ ∈ Λ ∩ LH then

λ ∈ L′ Λ2 ∩ H
⊂ L′ ∩ Λ3 Λ2 ∩ H , so p(Λ) ∩ K ⊂ p(L′ ∩ Λ3) that is indeed

finite.




As a first application we investigate the intersections of uniform approximate lattices with centralisers: 34 GOOD MODELS

Corollary 6.3. Let Λ be a uniform approximate lattice in a locally compact group G. Then for all γ ∈ Λ∞ the approximate subgroup Λ2 ∩ C(γ) is a uniform approxi- mate lattice in C(γ) the centraliser of γ. Moreover, if G is a Lie group and Λ∞ is dense in G, then Λ2 ∩ Z(G) is a uniform approximate lattice in Z(G) the centre of G. Proof. Let n ≥ 0 be an integer such that γ ∈ Λn and consider the map ϕ : G −→ G g 7−→ gγg−1. Then ϕ factors as ϕ = ψ ◦ p where ψ : G/C(γ) → G is a continuous injective map and p : G → G/C(γ) is the natural map. But ϕ(Λ) ⊂ Λn+2 so is locally finite. Hence, p(Λ) is locally finite as well. By part (1) of Proposition 6.1 we deduce that Λ2 ∩ C(γ) is a uniform approximate lattice in C(γ). ∞ Now if G is a Lie group and Λ is dense in G, then Z(G)= γ∈Λ∞ C(γ). But Z(G) is a Lie group and so are the C(γ)’s. Thus, there are γ ,...,γ ∈ Λ∞ such 1 T r that dim(Z(G)) = dim( i C(γi)). Consider now the map T ϕ : G −→ Gr −1 −1 g 7−→ (gγ1g ,...,gγrg ). r As above ϕ factors as ϕ = ψ ◦ p with ψ : G/ ( i C(γi)) → G an injective and con- n+2 tinuous map and p : G → G/ ( i C(γi)) the natural map. But ϕ(Λ) ⊂ 1≤i≤r Λ T n where n is a positive integer such that {γ1,...,γr}⊂ Λ . Thus, ϕ(Λ) is locally finite T 2 Q and so is p(Λ). By part (1) of Proposition 6.1 we deduce that Λ ∩ i C(γi) is a uni- form approximate lattice in i C(γi). But Z(G) is an open subgroup of i C(γi) so ′ 2 ′ T p (Λ ∩ i C(γi)) is obviously locally finite where p : i C(γi) → ( i C(γi)) /Z(G) is the natural map. By partT (1) of Proposition 6.1 once again we have thatT T T T 2 2 4 Λ ∩ C(γi) ∩ Z(G) ⊂ Λ ∩ Z(G) i ! \ is a uniform approximate lattice in Z(G). By Lemma 2.3 we find that Λ2 ∩ Z(G) is a uniform approximate lattice in Z(G).  6.2. Borel density for approximate lattices. The Borel density theorem asserts that lattices in simple algebraic groups are Zariski-dense. The usual route to show Borel density-type theorems for groups with finite co-volume is to start by proving that the subgroup considered has property (S) (see e.g. [9]). Definition 5 (Definition 1.1, [9]). Let G be a locally compact group. A closed subset X ⊂ G has property (S) if for all neighbourhoods Ω ⊂ G of the identity and all g ∈ G there is n ∈ N such that gn ∈ ΩXΩ. We show here that strong and/or uniform approximate lattices generate groups with property (S). Hence, they exhibit similar density properties. Proposition 6.4. Let G be a locally compact second countable group. We have: (1) if Λ is a uniform approximate lattice in G, then Λ∞ has property (S); (2) if X is a closed subset and ΩX has a proper G-invariant Borel probability measure, then X−1X has property (S). GOOD MODELS 35

Proof. Let us start with the case of uniform approximate lattices. Set H = Λ∞, then the subgroup Λ∞ has property (S) if and only if H has property (S). The subgroup Λ∞ is finitely generated by [4, Theorem 2.22] so H is compactly generated. But Λ is a uniform approximate lattice in the compactly generated Lie group H, so H is unimodular by [4, Theorem 5.8]. Now H is a co-compact unimodular subgroup so G/H has a finite G invariant measure by [36, Lemma 1.4] . Hence, according to [36, Lemma 5.4] the subgroup H has property (S) and so does Λ∞. Let us now prove (2). By assumption there is a proper G-invariant Borel proba- bility measure ν on ΩX . If Ω is any symmetric neighbourhood of the identity, then the open subset U Ω satisfies ν U Ω > 0. Indeed, U Ω is open and

gΩ Ω ΩX \ {∅} =
U = gU . g[∈G g[∈G Since G is second countable we can find D ⊂ G countable such that Ω ΩX \ {∅} = dU . d[∈D Ω Ω But ν(ΩX \ {∅})=1 so there is d ∈ D such that 0 <ν(dU )= ν(U ). Therefore, −1 n for any g ∈ G there is an integer 1 ≤ n< (ν (UΩ)) such that ν(UΩ ∩ g UΩ) > 0. n n So we can find P ∈ UΩ ∩ g UΩ. Thus, P ∩ Ω 6= ∅ and P ∩ g Ω 6= ∅. That implies that P −1P ∩ ΩgnΩ 6= ∅. But P −1P ⊂ X−1X so gn ∈ ΩX−1XΩ.  In the next section we will use the following consequence of the Borel density theorem in simple groups: Proposition 6.5 ([36] and §II.4[30]). Let G be a simple Lie group or the k-points of an almost simple algebraic group over a local field k. Suppose that G is not compact and let Γ be a group with property (S). If H is a closed (in the Lie or Zariski topology) soluble subgroup of H normalised by Γ, then H is discrete. Remark 6.2. Borel density for approximate lattices was first investigated in [8]. Their method was completely different however. The proof of Proposition 6.4 has the advantage of yielding a short proof that can be directly applied to cases not covered by [8], for instance approximate lattices in S-adic Lie groups. 6.3. Proof of Theorem 1.9. We will use results from Section 5 to show that the strategy due to Auslander in [1] carries over to the approximate subgroup setting. Hence, we will first show a generalisation of the Zassenhaus lemma. We define inductively the set of commutators of a subset X by X(1) := [X,X] and X(n+1) := [X,X(n)]. Lemma 6.6 (Zassenhaus-type lemma). Let G be a Lie group or a product of ra- tional points of affine algebraic groups over characteristic 0 local fields and let A be a normal abelian subgroup. Suppose that there is a distance dA defined on A that is left-invariant and such that the map d(gag−1,a) s : g 7→ sup a∈A d(a,e) is well-defined and continuous at e. Then there is a neighbourhood of the identity W ⊂ G such that for all compact subsets K of W A and any neighbourhood of the (n) identity V ⊂ G there is an integer n0 ≥ 0 with K ⊂ V for all n ≥ n0. 36 GOOD MODELS

Proof. Take ǫ1 and ǫ2 > 0 and choose neighbourhoods W1, W2 ⊂ G such that for all g ∈ Wi we have s(g) ≤ ǫi. Now for w1, w2 ∈ W2 and a1,a2 ∈ A we compute that −1 −1 −1 [w1a1, w2a2] = [w1, w2]w2w1([w2 ,a1][w1 ,a2])(w2w1) . So

(∗)[w1Bd(r1), w2Bd(r2)] ⊂ [w1, w2]Bd ((1 + ǫ1)(1 + ǫ2)(ǫ2r1 + ǫ1r2)) where Bd(r) is the ball of radius r centred at the identity and r1, r2 ≥ 0. But by [36, Cor. 8.15] (the proof holds verbatim over local fields of characteristic 0) we can find a neighbourhood of the identity W ⊂ G such that s(g) ≤ 1/4 for all g ∈ W , W (n+1) ⊂ W (n) for all n ≥ 0 and for any neighbourhood of the identity (n0) V ⊂ G there is n0 ≥ 0 such that W ⊂ V . We then compute using (∗) that for ′ all r ≥ 0 and for all neighbourhoods of the identity V ⊂ G there is n0 ≥ 0 such (n) ′ that (WBd(r)) ⊂ V for every n ≥ n0.  Lemma 6.7. Let Λ be an approximate subgroup in a group G and let Γ be a subgroup of G that commensurates and contains Λ. Assume furthermore that Λ generates a soluble subgroup and that one of the following holds: (1) G is a real Lie group and Λ is relatively compact; (2) G = G1 ×···× Gn is a finite product of groups of ki-points of algebraic groups over fields ki of characteristic 0 with i =1,...,n. Then Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of a normal soluble subgroup of Γ. Proof. Suppose (1). Then write Λ the closure of Λ and Γ′ the subgroup generated by Γ and Λ. Let φ : L → G be the Lie group homomorphism given by the closed- approximate-subgroup theorem (Theorem 1.4). Let L0 be the connected component of the identity in L. Since π−1(Λ) has non-empty interior Γ ∩ φ(L0) is contained ∞ in Λ . Whence L0 is soluble. But φ(L0) is normal in Γ′, and finitely many left- translates of φ(L0) cover Λ. So Γ ∩ φ(L0) works. Suppose now (2). Write G = G1 ×···× Gn. Suppose first that n = 1. Take any two subgroup H1,H2 of G such that Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of H1 and in finitely many left-translates of H2. Then Λ is contained in finitely many left-translates of H1 ∩ H2 (e.g. Lemma 2.2). Since G with the Zariski-topology is a Noetherian topological space, there is a minimal Zariski-closed subgroup H ⊂ G such that Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of H. Now, for any γ ∈ Γ, γΛγ−1 is covered by finitely many left-translates of γHγ−1. Hence, Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of γHγ−1 and by minimality γHγ−1 = H. If now n ≥ 1, apply the above reasoning in each factor to find soluble subgroups Hi ⊂ Gi normalised by Λ such that Λ is covered by finitely many left-translates of H := H1 × · · · Hn. Then H ∩ Γ works.  The next result is reminiscent of a lemma due to Wang ([36, Theorem 8.24]): Lemma 6.8. Let G be a Lie group or a product of finitely many groups of rational points of affine algebraic groups over local fields of characteristic 0, let R be a closed normal subgroup of G and Λ be a uniformly discrete approximate subgroup. Suppose moreover that there is a normal series R = R0 ⊃ R1 ⊃ ... ⊃ Rn = {e} such that for all i ∈ {1,...,n}, Ri is a closed normal subgroup of G and Ri−1/Ri satisfies GOOD MODELS 37 the conditions of Lemma 6.6 as a subgroup of G/Ri. Then there is a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity W ⊂ G such that Λ2 ∩ W R is contained in a soluble normal subgroup of Λ∞. Proof. Take V a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity. The subset Λ2 ∩ V 2R is an approximate subgroup by Lemma 2.3. Since Λ is uniformly discrete we know that Λ2 ∩V 2R is amenable by Theorem 1.7 and so (Λ2 ∩V 2R)4 ⊂ Λ8 ∩V 8R 8 8 has a good model by Proposition 5.1. Now there is Ξ1 ⊂ Λ ∩ V R that has a good 2 2 2 Lie model by Lemma 3.3. There is therefore Ξ2 ⊂ Ξ1 such that [Ξ2, Ξ2] ⊂ Ξ2 by [36, Cor. 8.15]. Let us proceed by induction on n the length of the normal series. If n = 0, take 2 W such that Ξ2 ∩W = {e}. Otherwise n ≥ 1, assume by induction that we can find 8 a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity W1 in G such that Λ ∩ W1R1 ∞ is contained in a soluble normal subgroup of Λ . By Lemma 6.6 there is W0 ⊂ G such that for all compact subsets K ⊂ W0R0 there is a positive integer n such that (n) 2 2 K ⊂ W1R1. For any finite subset F ⊂ Ξ2 ∩ W2 R we can thus find an integer (n) (n) 2 n such that F ∈ W1R1. Hence, F ∈ Ξ2 ∩ W1R1. So by [36, Lem. 8.17] and the induction hypothesis F generates a soluble subgroup. Now by [36, Cor. 8.4] 2 2 the approximate subgroup Ξ2 ∩ W2 R generates a soluble subgroup (for, if G is the group of rational points of an algebraic group over a local field of characteristic 0 we can embed it in GLn(C) for some integer n). If G is a Lie group, let Γ be the normal soluble subgroup of the projection of Λ∞ to G/R given by Lemma 2 2 6.7 applied to the projection of Ξ2 ∩ W2 R to G/R. If G is a product of algebraic groups, let Γ be the projection to G/R of the subgroup given by Lemma 6.7 applied 2 2 ∞ to Ξ2 ∩ W2 R. In both cases Γ is soluble and normalised by the projection of Λ . Since the projection of Λ2 ∩ V 2R is contained in finitely many left-translates of Γ (Lemma 2.3), there exists a symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity W such that the projection of Λ2 ∩ W R is contained in the closure of Γ. 

Proof of Theorem 1.9. Let A be the amenable radical (i.e. the maximal normal amenable closed subgroup) and R be the soluble radical (i.e. the maximal normal soluble closed subgroup) of G. Note that R has a series R = R0 ⊃ R1 ⊃ ... ⊃ Rn = {e} of closed normal subgroups of G such that Ri is normal in G and Ri−1/Ri is isomorphic to one of the following: a finitely generated abelian group, a p-adic torus, a real or p-adic finite dimensional vector space or a compact abelian (real or p-adic) Lie group (see e.g. [40, §14.1.1]). So one checks that R satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 6.8 using notably absolute values. Therefore, there is a soluble normal subgroup Γ of Λ∞ and some neighbourhood of the identity W in G such that Λ2 ∩ W R is contained in Γ. Let S be any non-compact simple factor of G and let pS : G → S be the natural map. Then pS(Γ) is solvable normalised by ∞ pS(Λ ) which has property (S) by Proposition 6.4. So pS(Γ) is discrete according 2 to Proposition 6.5. Hence, the subset pS(Λ ∩ W R) is discrete. We thus know that the projection of Λ2 ∩W R to G/A is finite. Since R is co-compact in A and Λ2 ∩W R is commensurable to Λ2 ∩ V R for any other symmetric compact neighbourhood of the identity V (Lemma 2.3) we find that the projection of Λ to G/A is uniformly discrete. By Proposition 6.1 the approximate subgroup Λ2∩A is a strong or uniform approximate lattice in A. And we have that Λ2 ∩ A is uniform by Proposition 5.10. ′ ′ Let S be a compact almost simple factor of G and let pS′ : G → S be the ∞ natural map. If pS′ (Λ ) is dense, then pS′ (Γ) must be finite as it is soluble and 38 GOOD MODELS

∞ normalised by pS′ (Λ ). So the Levi decomposition shows that the projection of Λ2 ∩ W 2R to G/R is finite, hence the projection of Λ to G/R is uniformly discrete. So Λ2 ∩ R is a uniform approximate lattice in R. 

Question 3. With the notations of Theorem 1.9. Let p : G → G/A denote the natural projection. Suppose that both p(Λ) and Λ2 ∩ A are contained in model sets. Is Λ contained in a model set? In [25] is provided an example of an approximate lattice (in the sense of Hrushovski) in a central extension of SL2(R) × SL2(Qp) by Qp with no good model. An answer to Question 3 should therefore take the (Lie, algebraic, connected, etc) structure of the ambient group G into account. See [25, §8] for a conjecture and discussions around this topic.

References

[1] Louis Auslander. On radicals of discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Amer. J. Math., 85:145–150, 1963. [2] Michael Baake and Uwe Grimm. Aperiodic order. Vol. 1, volume 149 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. A mathe- matical invitation, With a foreword by Roger Penrose. [3] Yves Benoist and Jean-Fran¸cois Quint. Lattices in S-adic Lie groups. J. Lie Theory, 24(1):179–197, 2014. [4] Michael Bj¨orklund and Tobias Hartnick. Approximate lattices. Duke Math. J., 167(15):2903– 2964, 2018. [5] Michael Bj¨orklund and Tobias Hartnick. Spectral theory of approximate lattices in nilpotent Lie groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06563, 2018. [6] Michael Bj¨orklund, Tobias Hartnick, and Felix Pogorzelski. Aperiodic order and spherical diffraction, I: Auto-correlation of model sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.08928, 2016. [7] Michael Bj¨orklund, Tobias Hartnick, and Felix Pogorzelski. Aperiodic order and spheri- cal diffraction, ii: Translation bounded measures on homogeneous spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00302, 2017. [8] Michael Bj¨orklund, Tobias Hartnick, and Thierry Stulemeijer. Borel density for approximate lattices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10560, 2019. [9] Armand Borel. Density properties for certain subgroups of semi-simple groups without com- pact components. Annals of Mathematics, 72(1):179–188, 1960. [10] N. Bourbaki. El´ements´ de math´ematique. Topologie g´en´erale. Chapitres 1 `a4. Hermann, Paris, 1971. [11] Nicolas Bourbaki. Lie groups and Lie algebras / Nicolas Bourbaki. Part I, chapters 1-3. Actualites scientifiques et industrielles. H ; Addison-Wesley, Paris : Reading, Mass, 1975. [12] Emmanuel Breuillard. Geometry of locally compact groups of polynomial growth and shape of large balls. Groups Geom. Dyn., 8(3):669–732, 2014. [13] Emmanuel Breuillard, Ben Green, and Terence Tao. The structure of approximate groups. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes´ Sci., 116:115–221, 2012. [14] Robert Brooks. Some remarks on bounded cohomology. In Riemann surfaces and related topics: Proceedings of the 1978 Stony Brook Conference, volume 97, pages 53–63, 1981. [15] Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace and Nicolas Monod. Isometry groups of non-positively curved spaces: discrete subgroups. J. Topol., 2(4):701–746, 2009. [16] Pietro Kreitlon Carolino. The Structure of Locally Compact Approximate Groups. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2015. Thesis (Ph.D.)–University of California, Los Angeles. [17] Ernie Croot and Olof Sisask. A probabilistic technique for finding almost-periods of convolu- tions. Geom. Funct. Anal., 20(6):1367–1396, 2010. [18] H. Federer and A. P. Morse. Some properties of measurable functions. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 49:270–277, 1943. [19] J. M. G. Fell. A Hausdorff topology for the closed subsets of a locally compact non-Hausdorff space. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 13:472–476, 1962. GOOD MODELS 39

[20] Alexander Fish. Extensions of Schreiber’s theorem on discrete approximate subgroups in Rd. J. Ec.´ polytech. Math., 6:149–162, 2019. [21] Andrew Geng. When are radicals of Lie groups lattice-hereditary? New York J. Math., 21:321–331, 2015. [22] Isaac Goldbring. Hilbert’s fifth problem for local groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 172(2):1269– 1314, 2010. [23] Frederick P. Greenleaf. Invariant means on topological groups and their applications. Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies, No. 16. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York-Toronto, Ont.-London, 1969. [24] Ehud Hrushovski. Stable group theory and approximate subgroups. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 25(1):189–243, 2012. [25] Ehud Hrushovski. Beyond the lascar group. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.12009, 2020. [26] Ehud Hrushovski, Krzysztof Krupinski, and Anand Pillay. Amenability and definability, 2019. [27] Simon Machado. Infinite approximate subgroups of soluble lie groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.12151, 2019. [28] Simon Machado. Approximate lattices and Meyer sets in nilpotent Lie groups. Discrete Anal- ysis, 1:18 pp., 2020. [29] Simon Machado. Approximate lattices in higher-rank semi-simple groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01835, 2020. [30] G. A. Margulis. Discrete subgroups of semisimple Lie groups, volume 17 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. [31] Jean-Cyrille Massicot and Frank O. Wagner. Approximate subgroups. J. Ec.´ polytech. Math., 2:55–64, 2015. [32] Yves Meyer. Algebraic numbers and harmonic analysis, volume 2. Elsevier, 1972. [33] Robert V Moody. Meyer sets and their duals. NATO ASI Series C Mathematical and Physical Sciences-Advanced Study Institute, 489:403–442, 1997. [34] G. D. Mostow. Arithmetic subgroups of groups with radical. Ann. of Math. (2), 93:409–438, 1971. [35] Peter J. Olver. Non-associative local Lie groups. J. Lie Theory, 6(1):23–51, 1996. [36] Madabusi Santanam Raghunathan. Discrete subgroups of Lie groups. Ergebnisse der Math- ematik, 68, 1972. [37] Tom Sanders. Approximate groups and doubling metrics. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 152(3):385–404, 2012. [38] Jean-Pierre Schreiber. Approximations diophantiennes et problemes additifs dans les groupes ab´eliens localement compacts. Bull. Soc. Math. France, 101:297–332, 1973. [39] Yehuda Shalom and George A Willis. Commensurated subgroups of arithmetic groups, totally disconnected groups and adelic rigidity. Geometric and Functional Analysis, 23(5):1631–1683, 2013. [40] Tonny Albert Springer. Linear algebraic groups. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010. [41] Terence Tao. Product set estimates for non-commutative groups. Combinatorica, 28(5):547– 594, 2008. [42] Matthew C. H. Tointon. Introduction to Approximate Groups. London Mathematical Society Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, 2019. [43] Kroum Tzanev. Hecke C∗-algebras and amenability. J. Operator Theory, 50(1):169–178, 2003. [44] V. I. Uˇsakov. Topological F C-groups. Sibirsk. Mat. Z.ˇ , 4:1162–1174, 1963. [45] Andr´eWeil. Sur les espaces `astructure uniforme et sur la topologie g´en´erale. Paris, 1938. [46] Robert J Zimmer. Ergodic theory and semisimple groups, volume 81. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.