Preprint Arxiv:1206:4793V1, 2012

Groups of piecewise projective homeomorphisms Nicolas Monod ∗ ∗EPFL, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

The group of piecewise projective homeomorphisms of the line pro- PA. We write H(A) = G(A) ∩ H, which is the stabilizer of ∞ vides straightforward torsion-free counter-examples to the so-called in G(A). von Neumann conjecture. The examples are so simple that many additional properties can be established. The main result of this article is the following, which relies on a new method for proving non-amenability. Theorem 1. The group H(A) is non-amenable if A 6= Z. Introduction The next result is a sequacious generalization of the corre- In 1924, Banach and Tarski accomplished a rather paradoxical sponding theorem of Brin–Squier about piecewise affine trans- feat. They proved that a solid ball can be decomposed into formations [7] and we claim no originality. five pieces which are then moved around and reassembled in Theorem 2. The group H does not contain any non-abelian free such a way as to obtain two balls identical with the original subgroup. Thus, H(A) inherits this property for any subring one [6]. This wellnigh miraculous duplication was based on A < R. Hausdorff’s 1914 work [18]. Thus already H = H(R) itself is a counter-example to In his 1929 study of the Hausdorff–Banach–Tarski para- the von Neumann conjecture. Writing H(A) as the directed dox, von Neumann introduced the concept of amenable union of its finitely generated subgroups, we deduce: groups [37]. Tarski readily proved that amenability is the only obstruction to paradoxical decompositions [34, 35]. However, Corollary 3. For A 6= Z, the groups H(A) contain finitely gen- the known paradoxes relied more prosaically on the existence erated subgroups that are simultaneously non-amenable and of non-abelian free subgroups. Therefore, the main open prob- without non-abelian free subgroups. lem in the subject remained for half a century to find non- amenable groups without free subgroups. Von Neumann’s Further properties The groups H(A) seem to enjoy a number name was apparently attached to it by Day in the 1950s. of additional interesting properties, some of which are weaker The problem was finally solved around 1980: Ol0shanski˘ı forms of amenability. In the last section, we shall prove the proved the non-amenability of the Tarski monsters that he following five propositions (and recall the terminology). Here had constructed [28, 29, 30]; Adyan showed that his work A < R is an arbitrary subring. on Burnside groups yields non-amenability [3, 4]. Finitely Proposition 4. All L2-Betti numbers of H(A) and of G(A) van- presented examples were constructed another twenty years ish. 0 later by Ol shanski˘ı–Sapir [27]. There are several more re- Proposition 5. The group H(A) is inner amenable. cent counter-examples [15, 31, 32]. Proposition 6. The group H is bi-orderable and hence so are all its subgroups. It follows that there is no non-trivial homo- Given any subring A < R, we shall define a group G(A) morphism from any Kazhdan group to H. and a subgroup H(A) < G(A) of piecewise projective trans- 1 Proposition 7. Let E ⊆ P be any subset. Then the subgroup of formations. Those will provide concrete, uncomplicated new H(A) which fixes E pointwise is co-amenable in H(A) unless examples with many additional properties. Perhaps ironically, E is dense (in which case the subgroup is trivial). our short proof of non-amenability ultimately relies on basic free groups of matrices, as in Hausdorff’s 1914 paradox, even Proposition 8. If H(A) acts by isometries on any proper though the Tits alternative [36] shows that the examples can- CAT(0) space, then either it fixes a point at infinity or it not be linear themselves. preserves a Euclidean subspace. One can also check that H(A) satisfies no group law and Construction has vanishing properties in bounded cohomology (see below). I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. Mary Shelley, Frankenstein Non-amenability (introduction to the 1831 edition) An obvious difference between the actions of PSL2(A) and of 1 Consider the natural action of the group PSL2(R) on H(A) on P is that the latter group fixes ∞ whilst the former the projective line P1 = P1(R). We endow P1 with its R- does not. The next proposition shows that this is the only topology making it a topological circle. We denote by G the difference as far as the orbit structure is concerned. group of all homeomorphisms of P1 which are piecewise in 1 PSL2(R), each piece being an interval of P , with finitely many pieces. We let H < G be the subgroup fixing the point Reserved for Publication Footnotes ∞ ∈ P1 corresponding to the first basis vector of R2. Thus H is left-orderable since it acts faithfully on the topological line P1 \ {∞}, preserving orientations. It follows in particular that H is torsion-free. 1 Given a subring A < R, we denote by PA ⊆ P the collection of all fixed points of all hyperbolic elements of PSL2(A). This set is PSL2(A)-invariant and is countable if A is so. We define G(A) to be the subgroup of G given by all elements that are piecewise in PSL2(A) with all interval endpoints in www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709640104 PNAS Issue Date Volume Issue Number 1–5 Proposition 9. Let A < R be any subring and let p ∈ P1 \{∞}. An a.e. free action of a countable group is amenable in Zim- Then mer’s sense [40, 4.3] if and only if the associated relation is amenable; see [2, Thm. A]. PSL2(A) · p ⊆ {∞} ∪ H(A) · p. Proof of Theorem 1. Let A 6= Z be a subring of R. Then Thus, the equivalence relations induced by the actions of A contains a countable subring A0 < A which is dense in R. PSL (A) and of H(A) on P1 coincide when restricted to 2 Since H(A0) is a subgroup of H(A), we can assume that A P1 \ {∞}. itself is countable dense. Now H(A) is a countable group and Γ := PSL (A) is a countable dense subgroup of PSL (R). Proof. We need to show that given g ∈ PSL (A) with 2 2 2 It is proved in Théorème 3 of [10] that the equivalence gp 6= ∞, there is an element h ∈ H(A) such that hp = gp. relation on PSL (R) induced by the multiplication action of We assume g∞= 6 ∞ since otherwise h = g will do. Equiva- 2 Γ is non-amenable; see also Remarks 10 and 11 below. Equiv- lently, we need an element q ∈ G(A) fixing gp and such that alently, the Γ-action on PSL (R) is non-amenable. Viewing q∞ = g∞, writing h = q−1g. It suffices to find a hyperbolic 2 P1 as a homogeneous space of PSL (R), it follows that the element q ∈ PSL (A) with q ∞ = g∞ and whose fixed points 2 0 2 0 Γ-action on P1 is non-amenable. Indeed, amenability is pre- ξ ∈ P1 separate gp from both ∞ and g∞, see Figure 1. In- ± served under extensions, see [39, 2.4] or [2, Cor. C]. This deed, we can then define q to be the identity on the component action is a.e. free since any non-trivial element has at most of P1 \{ξ } containing gp, and define q to coincide with q ± 0 two fixed points. Thus the relation induced by Γ on P1 on the other component. is non-amenable. Restricting to P1 \ {∞}, we deduce from Proposition 9 that the relation induced by the H(A)-action is g∞ also non-amenable. (Amenability is preserved under restric- tion [20, 9.3], but here {∞} is a null-set anyway.) Thus H(A) ξ+ r is a non-amenable group. r ∞ ξ r − Remark 10. We recall from [10] that the non-amenability of the r Γ-relation on PSL2(R) is a general consequence of the exis- gp tence of a non-discrete non-abelian free subgroup of Γ. Thus Fig. 1. The desired configuration of ξ± the main point of our appeal to [10] is the existence of this r non-discrete free subgroup, but this is much easier to prove directly in the present case of Γ = PSL2(A) than for general a b non-discrete non-soluble Γ. Let be a matrix representative of g; thus, c d Remark 11. Here is a direct argument√ avoiding all the above a, b, c, d ∈ A and ad − bc = 1. The assumption g∞ 6= ∞ references in the examples of A = Z[ 2] or A = Z[1/`], where 1 implies c 6= 0 and thus we can assume c > 0. Let q0 be ` is prime. We show directly that the Γ-action on P is not a b + ra given by with r ∈ A to be determined later; amenable. We consider Γ as a lattice in L := PSL2(R) × c d + rc PSL2(R) in the first case and in L := PSL2(R) × PSL2(Q`) thus q0∞ = g∞. This matrix is hyperbolic as soon as |r| is in the second case, both times in such a way that the Γ-action large enough to ensure that the trace τ = a + d + rc is larger on P1 extends to the L-action factoring through the first fac- than 2 in absolute value. We only need to show that a suit- tor. If the Γ-action on P1 were amenable, so would be the able choice of r will ensure the above condition on ξ±. Notice L-action (by co-amenability of the lattice). But of course L 1 that ∞ and g∞ lie in the same component of P \{ξ±} since does not act amenably since the stabilizer of any point contains q0 preserves these components and sends ∞ to g∞. In con- the (non-amenable) second factor of L. clusion, it suffices to prove the following two claims: (1) as The non-discreteness of A was essential in our proof, thus |r| → ∞, the set {ξ±} converges to {∞, g∞}; (2) changing excluding A = Z. the sign of r (when |r| is large) will change the component of 1 Problem 12. Is H(Z) amenable? P \{∞, g∞} in which ξ± lie (we need it to be the component of gp). The claims can be proved by elementary dynamical The group H(Z) is related to Thompson’s group F , for considerations; we shall instead verify them explicitly. which the question of (non-)amenability is a notorious open problem. Indeed F seems to be historically the first candidate The fixed points ξ± are represented by the eigenvectors for a counter-example to the so-called von Neumann conjec- x ± , where x = λ − d − rc and where λ = (τ ± ture. The relation is as follows: if we modify the definition of c ± ± ± √ H(Z) by requiring that the breakpoints be rational, then all 2 1 τ − 4)/2 are the eigenvalues. Now limr→+∞ λ+ = +∞ its elements are automatically C and the resulting group is implies limr→+∞ λ− = 0 since λ+λ− = 1 and therefore conjugated to F . The corresponding relation holds between limr→+∞ x− = −∞. Similarly, limr→−∞ x+ = +∞ (Figure 1 G(Z) and Thompson’s group T . These facts are attributed to depicts the case r > 0). This already proves claim (2) and a remark of Thurston around 1975 and a very detailed expo- half of claim (1). Since g∞ = [a: c], it only remains to verify sition can be found in [22]. that both limr→+∞ x+ and limr→−∞ x− converge to a, which is a direct computation. H is a free group free group We recall that a measurable equivalence relation with We shall largely follow [7, § 3], the main difference being that countable classes is amenable if there is an a.e. defined mea- we replace commutators by a non-trivial word in the second surable assignment of a mean on the orbit of each point in such derived subgroup of a free group on two generators. a way that the means of two equivalent points coincide. We refer e.g. to [12] and [20] for background on amenable equiva- The support supp(g) of an element g ∈ H denotes the set lence relations. It follows from this definition that any relation {p : gp 6= p}, which is a finite union of open intervals. Any produced by a measurable action of a (countable) amenable subgroup of H fixing some point p ∈ P1 has two canonical group is amenable, by push-forward of the mean [33, 1.6(1)]. homomorphisms to the metabelian stabilizer of p in PSL2(R)

2 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709640104 Footline Author given by left and right germs. Therefore, we deduce the fol- of H(A) which is supported in this neighbourhood. Notice lowing elementary fact, wherein hf, gi denotes the subgroup that PSL2(Z) contains hyperbolic elements with both fixed of H generated by f and g. points ξ± arbitrarily close to ∞, and on the same side. For 1 2 1 1 n Lemma 13. If f, g ∈ H have a common fixed point p ∈ P , instance, conjugate by for sufficiently large then any element of the second derived subgroup hf, gi00 acts 1 1 0 1 trivially on a neighbourhood of p. n ∈ N. We choose such an element h0 with ξ± in the given Theorem 2 is an immediate consequence of the following neighbourhood and define hS to be trivial on the component 1 more precise statement. of P \{ξ±} containing ∞ and to coincide with h0 on the Theorem 14. Let f, g ∈ H. Either hf, gi is metabelian or it other component. contains a free abelian group of rank two. A group is called bi-orderable if it carries a bi-invariant Proof. We suppose that hf, gi is not metabelian, so that total order. The construction below is completely standard, there is a word w in the second derived subgroup of a free compare e.g. [8, p. 233] for a first-order version of our second- group on two generators such that w(f, g) ∈ H is non-trivial. order argument. We now follow faithfully the proof of Theorem 3.2 in [7], re- Proof of Proposition 6. Choose an orientation of P1 \{∞} placing [f, g] by w(f, g). For the reader’s convenience, we and define a (right) germ at a point p to be positive if either sketch the argument; the details are on page 495 of [7] (or its first derivative is > 1 or if it is = 1 but the second deriva- [8, p. 232]). Applying Lemma 13 to all endpoints p of the tive is > 0. Then define the set H+ of positive elements of H connected components of supp(f) ∪ supp(g), we deduce that to consist of all transformations whose first non-trivial germ the closure of supp(w(f, g)) is contained in supp(f)∪supp(g). (starting from ∞ along the orientation) is positive. Now H+ is This implies that some element of hf, gi will send any con- −1 a conjugacy invariant sub-semigroup and H \{e} is H+ tH ; nected component of supp(w(f, g)) to a disjoint interval. The + this means that H+ defines a bi-invariant total order. needed element might depend on the connected component. Suppose now that we are given a homomorphism from However, upon replacing w(f, g) by another non-trivial ele- 00 a Kazhdan group to H. Its image is then a Kazhdan sub- ment w1 ∈ hf, gi with minimal number of intersecting com- group K < H. Kazhdan’s property implies that K is finitely ponents with supp(f)∪supp(g), some element h of hf, gi sends generated. It has been known for a long time that any non- the whole of supp(w1) to a set disjoint from it. The corre- −1 trivial finitely generated bi-orderable group has a non-trivial sponding conjugate w2 := hw1h will commute with w1 and homomorphism to R: this follows ultimately from Hölder’s indeed these two elements generate freely a free abelian group. 1901 work [19] by looking at maximal convex subgroups and is explained in [21, § 2]. But this is impossible for a Kazhdan As pointed out to us by Cornulier, the above argument group. can be pushed so that w and h generate a wreath product 1 Lemma 16. For any p ∈ P1 \ {∞} there is a sequence {g } in Z o Z, compare [17, Thm. 21] for the piecewise linear case. n H(Z) such that gnq converges to ∞ uniformly for q in compact subsets of P1 \{p}. Lagniappe 2 Proof. It suffices to show that for any open neighbour- Proof of Proposition 4. We refer to [11] for the L -Betti num- hoods U and V of p and ∞ respectively in P1, there is n 1 bers β(2), n ∈ N. Fix a large integer n and let Γ = G(H) or g ∈ H(Z) which maps P \ U into V . Since the collection of H(A). Choose a set F ⊆ PA of n + 1 distinct points and let pairs of fixed points of hyperbolic elements of PSL2(Z) is dense ∗ 1 1 Λ < Γ be the pointwise stabilizer of F . Any intersection Λ in P × P , we can find hyperbolic matrices h1, h2 ∈ PSL2(Z) of any (finite) number of conjugates of Λ is still the pointwise with repelling fixed points ri in U \{p} and attracting fixed ∗ stabilizer of a finite set F containing m ≥ n + 1 points. The points ai in V \ {∞} and such that the cyclic order is ∗ definition of G(A) shows that Λ is the product of m infinite ∞, a1, r1, p, r2, a2. Now we define g to be a sufficiently high i ∗ groups. The Künnethformula [11, § 2] implies β(2)(Λ ) = 0 power of h1 on the interval [a1, r1] (for the above cyclic order), for all i = 0, . . . , m − 1. In this situation, Theorem 1.3 of [5] of h2 on the interval [r2, a2] and the identity elsewhere. i asserts β(2)(Γ) = 0 for all i ≤ m − 1. Proof of Proposition 7. Let K be the pointwise stabilizer A subgroup K of a group J is called co-amenable if there of a non-dense subset E ⊆ P1; it suffices to find a mean in- is an J-invariant mean on J/K. Equivalent characterizations, 00 variant under H(A) . Let {gn} be the sequence provided by generalizations and unexpected examples can be found in [16] Lemma 16 for p an interior point of the complement of E. Any and [25]. accumulation point of the sequence of point-masses at gnK in Recall that a group J is inner amenable if there is a H(A)/K will do. Indeed, since any g ∈ H(A)00 is trivial in a −1 conjugacy-invariant mean on J\{e}. It is equivalent to exhibit neighbourhood of ∞, we have gn ggn ∈ K for n large enough. such a mean that is invariant under the second derived subgroup J 00 since the latter is co-amenable in J. Thus, Propo- sition 5 is a consequence of the stronger fact that H(A) is The existence of two (or more) commuting co-amenable “{asymptotically commutative}-by-metabelian” in a sense in- subgroups is also a weak form of amenability. It is the key in spired by [38] as follows. the argument cited below. Proposition 15. Let A < R be any subring. For any finite set Proof of Proposition 8. Consider two disjoint non-empty 00 1 S ⊆ H(A) there is a non-trivial element hS ∈ H(A) com- open sets in P . The pointwise stabilizers of their complement muting with each element of S. commute with each other and are co-amenable by Proposi- Indeed, any accumulation point of this net of point-masses tion 7. In this situation, Corollary 2.2 of [9] yields the desired 00 at hS is H(A) -invariant. conclusion. Proof of Proposition 15. By the argument of Lemma 13, The properties used in this section show immediately that there is a neighbourhood of ∞ on which all elements of S are H(A) fulfills the criterion of [1, Thm. 1.1] and thus satisfies trivial. Thus is suffices to exhibit a non-trivial element hS no group law.

Footline Author PNAS Issue Date Volume Issue Number 3 n Combining Theorems 1 and 2 with the main result of [24], Hb (H(A),V ) vanishes for all n ∈ N and all mixing unitary we conclude that the wreath product Z o H is a torsion-free representations V . More generally, it applies to any semi- non-unitarisable group without free subgroups. We can re- separable coefficient module V unless all finitely generated place it by a finitely generated subgroup upon choosing a subgroups of H(A)00 have invariant vectors in V (see [23] non-amenable finitely generated subgroup of H. This pro- for details and definitions). This should be contrasted with vides some new examples towards Dixmier’s problem, un- the fact that amenability is characterized by the vanishing of solved since 1950 [13, 14, 26]. bounded cohomology with all dual coefficients.

Finally, we mention that our argument from Proposi- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Supported in part by the ERC and the Swiss National tion 6.4 in [23] applies to show that the bounded cohomology Science Foundation.

1. M. Abért.Group laws and free subgroups in topological groups. Bull. London Math. 20. A. S. Kechris and B. D. Miller. Topics in orbit equivalence, volume 1852 of Lecture Soc., 37(4):525–534, 2005. Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. 2. S. Adams, G. A. Elliott, and T. Giordano. Amenable actions of groups. Trans. Amer. 21. V. M. Kopytov and N. Y. Medvedev. Right-ordered groups. Consultants Bureau, New Math. Soc., 344(2):803–822, 1994. York, 1996. 3. S. I. Adyan. The Burnside problem and identities in groups, volume 95 of Ergebnisse 22. X. Martin. Sur la géométriede groupe de Thompson. PhD thesis, Universitéde der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979. Grenoble, 2002. 4. S. I. Adyan. Random walks on free periodic groups. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 23. N. Monod. On the bounded cohomology of semi-simple groups, S-arithmetic groups 46(6):1139–1149, 1343, 1982. and products. J. Reine Angew. Math. [Crelle’s J.], 640:167–202, 2010. 5. U. Bader, A. Furman, and R. Sauer. Weak notions of normality and vanishing up to 24. N. Monod and N. Ozawa. The Dixmier problem, lamplighters and Burnside groups. rank in L2-cohomology. preprint arXiv:1206:4793v1, 2012. J. Funct. Anal., 1:255–259, 2010. 6. S. Banach and A. Tarski. Sur la décomposition des ensembles de points en parties 25. N. Monod and S. Popa. On co-amenability for groups and von Neumann algebras. C. respectivement congruentes. Fund. math., 6:244–277, 1924. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can., 25(3):82–87, 2003. 26. M. Nakamura and Z. Takeda. Group representation and Banach limit. TôhokuMath. 7. M. G. Brin and C. C. Squier. Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms of the real J. (2), 3:132–135, 1951. line. Invent. Math., 79(3):485–498, 1985. 27. A. Y. Ol0shanskii and M. V. Sapir. Non-amenable finitely presented torsion-by-cyclic 8. J. W. Cannon, W. J. Floyd, and W. R. Parry. Introductory notes on Richard Thomp- groups. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Etudes´ Sci., 96:43–169 (2003), 2002. son’s groups. Enseign. Math. (2), 42(3-4):215–256, 1996. 28. A. Y. Ol0shanski˘ı. An infinite simple torsion-free Noetherian group. Izv. Akad. Nauk 9. P.-E. Caprace and N. Monod. Isometry groups of non-positively curved spaces: dis- SSSR Ser. Mat., 43(6):1328–1393, 1979. crete subgroups. J Topology, 2(4):701–746, 2009. 29. A. Y. Ol0shanski˘ı. An infinite group with subgroups of prime orders. Izv. Akad. Nauk ´ 10. Y. Carrièreand E. Ghys. Relations d’équivalencemoyennables sur les groupes de Lie. SSSR Ser. Mat., 44(2):309–321, 479, 1980. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér.I Math., 300(19):677–680, 1985. 30. A. Y. Ol0shanski˘ı. On the question of the existence of an invariant mean on a group. 11. J. Cheeger and M. Gromov. L2-cohomology and group cohomology. Topology, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 35(4(214)):199–200, 1980. 25(2):189–215, 1986. 31. D. V. Osin. L2-Betti numbers and non-unitarizable groups without free subgroups. 12. A. Connes, J. Feldman, and B. Weiss. An amenable equivalence relation is generated Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (22):4220–4231, 2009. by a single transformation. Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems, 1(4):431–450 (1982), 32. J.-C. Schlage-Puchta. A p-group with positive rank gradient. J. Group Theory, 1981. 15(2):261–270, 2012. 13. M. M. Day. Means for the bounded functions and ergodicity of the bounded repre- 33. K. Schmidt. Algebraic ideas in ergodic theory, volume 76 of CBMS Regional Confer- sentations of semi-groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 69:276–291, 1950. ence Series in Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical 14. J. Dixmier. Les moyennes invariantes dans les semi-groupes et leurs applications. Acta Sciences, Washington, DC, 1990. Sci. Math. Szeged, 12:213–227, 1950. 34. A. Tarski. Sur les fonctions additives dans les classes abstraites et leur application au 15. M. Ershov. Golod-Shafarevich groups with property (T ) and Kac-Moody groups. Duke problèmede la mesure. C. R. Soc. Sc. Varsovie, 22:114–117, 1929. Math. J., 145(2):309–339, 2008. 35. A. Tarski. Algebraische Fassung des Maßproblems. Fund. Math., 31:47–66, 1938. 16. P. Eymard. Moyennes invariantes et représentationsunitaires. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 36. J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups. J. Algebra, 20:250–270, 1972. 1972. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 300. 37. J. von Neumann. Zur allgemeinen Theorie des Maßes. Fund. Math., 13:73–116, 1929. 17. V. S. Guba and M. V. Sapir. On subgroups of the R. Thompson group F and other 38. G. Zeller-Meier. Deux nouveaux facteurs de type II1. Invent. Math., 7:235–242, diagram groups. Mat. Sb., 190(8):3–60 (transl. 1077–1130), 1999. 1969. 18. F. Hausdorff. Bemerkung über den Inhalt von Punktmengen. Math. Ann., 75(3):428– 39. R. J. Zimmer. Amenable ergodic group actions and an application to Poisson bound- 433, 1914. aries of random walks. J. Functional Analysis, 27(3):350–372, 1978. 19. O. Hölder.Die Axiome der Quantitätund die Lehre vom Maß. Leipz. Ber., 53:1–64, 40. R. J. Zimmer. Ergodic theory and semisimple groups. BirkhäuserVerlag, Basel, 1984. 1901.

4 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709640104 Footline Author