DOCSLIB.ORG

Kazhdan's Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kazhdan's Property Kazhdan's Property (T) Talk 1: Definitions, examples and non-examples. David Hume, University of Bristol [email protected] October 5, 2020 David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) My goal is to demystify some of the definitions, explain strategies to prove that a group does or doesn't have property (T), and survey some of the many applications of property (T). Disclaimer The book \Kazhdan's Property (T)" by Bekka, de la Harpe and Valette is an excellent (and freely available) resource. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Disclaimer The book \Kazhdan's Property (T)" by Bekka, de la Harpe and Valette is an excellent (and freely available) resource. My goal is to demystify some of the definitions, explain strategies to prove that a group does or doesn't have property (T), and survey some of the many applications of property (T). David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Strategy: find a property (T) which satisfies the following three conditions. 1) Simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 have property (T). 2) If a locally compact group G has property (T), then all lattices in G have property (T). 3) A discrete countable group which has property (T) admits a finite generating set and has finite abelianisation. To find such a property, Kazhdan considered unitary representations of groups. Why? Kazhdan's motivation Theorem Lattices in simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 are finitely generated and have finite abelianisation. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) To find such a property, Kazhdan considered unitary representations of groups. Why? Kazhdan's motivation Theorem Lattices in simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 are finitely generated and have finite abelianisation. Strategy: find a property (T) which satisfies the following three conditions. 1) Simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 have property (T). 2) If a locally compact group G has property (T), then all lattices in G have property (T). 3) A discrete countable group which has property (T) admits a finite generating set and has finite abelianisation. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Kazhdan's motivation Theorem Lattices in simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 are finitely generated and have finite abelianisation. Strategy: find a property (T) which satisfies the following three conditions. 1) Simple Lie groups of rank ≥ 2 have property (T). 2) If a locally compact group G has property (T), then all lattices in G have property (T). 3) A discrete countable group which has property (T) admits a finite generating set and has finite abelianisation. To find such a property, Kazhdan considered unitary representations of groups. Why? David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) The unitary group U(H) of H is the group of all invertible bounded linear operators U ∶ H → H such that ⟨Ux; Uy⟩ = ⟨x; y⟩ for all x; y ∈ H: A unitary representation of G in H is a group homomorphism π ∶ G → U(H) which is strongly continuous, meaning that for each x ∈ H, the map G → H given by g ↦ π(g)x is continuous. Representations Let G be a locally compact topological group and let H be a complex Hilbert space. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) A unitary representation of G in H is a group homomorphism π ∶ G → U(H) which is strongly continuous, meaning that for each x ∈ H, the map G → H given by g ↦ π(g)x is continuous. Representations Let G be a locally compact topological group and let H be a complex Hilbert space. The unitary group U(H) of H is the group of all invertible bounded linear operators U ∶ H → H such that ⟨Ux; Uy⟩ = ⟨x; y⟩ for all x; y ∈ H: David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Representations Let G be a locally compact topological group and let H be a complex Hilbert space. The unitary group U(H) of H is the group of all invertible bounded linear operators U ∶ H → H such that ⟨Ux; Uy⟩ = ⟨x; y⟩ for all x; y ∈ H: A unitary representation of G in H is a group homomorphism π ∶ G → U(H) which is strongly continuous, meaning that for each x ∈ H, the map G → H given by g ↦ π(g)x is continuous. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) A representation π ∶ G → U(H) is said to contain the trivial representation if it has a non-zero invariant vector. This is denoted 1 ⊂ π. Given a locally compact group G with left invariant Haar measure 2 dg, the left regular representation λG ∶ G → U(L (G; dg)) given by 1 2 λG (g)F (x) = F (g x) for all F ∈ L (G; dg) and x ∈ G is a unitary representation. − We have 1 ⊂ λG if and only if G is compact. Examples of Unitary Representations The trivial representation is defined as 1 ∶ G → C given by 1(g)x = x for all g ∈ G and x ∈ C. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Given a locally compact group G with left invariant Haar measure 2 dg, the left regular representation λG ∶ G → U(L (G; dg)) given by 1 2 λG (g)F (x) = F (g x) for all F ∈ L (G; dg) and x ∈ G is a unitary representation. − We have 1 ⊂ λG if and only if G is compact. Examples of Unitary Representations The trivial representation is defined as 1 ∶ G → C given by 1(g)x = x for all g ∈ G and x ∈ C. A representation π ∶ G → U(H) is said to contain the trivial representation if it has a non-zero invariant vector. This is denoted 1 ⊂ π. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) We have 1 ⊂ λG if and only if G is compact. Examples of Unitary Representations The trivial representation is defined as 1 ∶ G → C given by 1(g)x = x for all g ∈ G and x ∈ C. A representation π ∶ G → U(H) is said to contain the trivial representation if it has a non-zero invariant vector. This is denoted 1 ⊂ π. Given a locally compact group G with left invariant Haar measure 2 dg, the left regular representation λG ∶ G → U(L (G; dg)) given by 1 2 λG (g)F (x) = F (g x) for all F ∈ L (G; dg) and x ∈ G is a unitary representation. − David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Examples of Unitary Representations The trivial representation is defined as 1 ∶ G → C given by 1(g)x = x for all g ∈ G and x ∈ C. A representation π ∶ G → U(H) is said to contain the trivial representation if it has a non-zero invariant vector. This is denoted 1 ⊂ π. Given a locally compact group G with left invariant Haar measure 2 dg, the left regular representation λG ∶ G → U(L (G; dg)) given by 1 2 λG (g)F (x) = F (g x) for all F ∈ L (G; dg) and x ∈ G is a unitary representation. − We have 1 ⊂ λG if and only if G is compact. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) π has almost invariant vectors if, for every compact K ⊂ G and " > 0 there is a non-zero (K;")-invariant vector vK;". Almost invariant vectors Let π ∶ G → U(H) be a unitary representation, let K be a subset of G and let " > 0. A vector v ∈ H is (K;")-invariant if sup Yπ(g)v − vY < "YvY g K ∈ David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Almost invariant vectors Let π ∶ G → U(H) be a unitary representation, let K be a subset of G and let " > 0. A vector v ∈ H is (K;")-invariant if sup Yπ(g)v − vY < "YvY g K ∈ π has almost invariant vectors if, for every compact K ⊂ G and " > 0 there is a non-zero (K;")-invariant vector vK;". David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Proof. Fix some compact K ⊂ R and some " > 0. Choose a ∈ [0; ∞) such 2 2 that K ⊂ [−a" ; a" ] and define v = χ 4a;4a . For each g ∈ K, Sπ(g)v − vY ≤ χB , where 2 2 [−2 ] 2 B = [−a(4 + " ); −a(4 − " )] ∪ [a(4 − " ); a(4 + " )]. Thus 2 1 1 sup Yπ(g)v − vY ≤ YχB Y = (4a" ) 2 < "(8a) 2 = "YvY: g K More generally,∈ a group G is amenable if and only if the left regular representation has almost invariant vectors. Examples Lemma 2 λR ∶ R → U(L (R)) has almost invariant vectors. David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) More generally, a group G is amenable if and only if the left regular representation has almost invariant vectors. Examples Lemma 2 λR ∶ R → U(L (R)) has almost invariant vectors. Proof. Fix some compact K ⊂ R and some " > 0. Choose a ∈ [0; ∞) such 2 2 that K ⊂ [−a" ; a" ] and define v = χ 4a;4a . For each g ∈ K, Sπ(g)v − vY ≤ χB , where 2 2 [−2 ] 2 B = [−a(4 + " ); −a(4 − " )] ∪ [a(4 − " ); a(4 + " )]. Thus 2 1 1 sup Yπ(g)v − vY ≤ YχB Y = (4a" ) 2 < "(8a) 2 = "YvY: g K ∈ David Hume Kazhdan's Property (T) Examples Lemma 2 λR ∶ R → U(L (R)) has almost invariant vectors. Proof. Fix some compact K ⊂ R and some " > 0. Choose a ∈ [0; ∞) such 2 2 that K ⊂ [−a" ; a" ] and define v = χ 4a;4a . For each g ∈ K, Sπ(g)v − vY ≤ χB , where 2 2 [−2 ] 2 B = [−a(4 + " ); −a(4 − " )] ∪ [a(4 − " ); a(4 + " )]. Thus 2 1 1 sup Yπ(g)v − vY ≤ YχB Y = (4a" ) 2 < "(8a) 2 = "YvY: g K More generally,∈ a group G is amenable if and only if the left regular representation has almost invariant vectors.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physics.Hist-Ph] 15 May 2018 Meitl,Fo Hsadsadr Nepeainlprinciples
    Why Be Regular?, Part I Benjamin Feintzeig Department of Philosophy University of Washington JB (Le)Manchak, Sarita Rosenstock, James Owen Weatherall Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of California, Irvine Abstract We provide a novel perspective on “regularity” as a property of representations of the Weyl algebra. We first critique a proposal by Halvorson [2004, “Complementarity of representa- tions in quantum mechanics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(1), pp. 45–56], who argues that the non-regular “position” and “momentum” representations of the Weyl algebra demonstrate that a quantum mechanical particle can have definite values for position or momentum, contrary to a widespread view. We show that there are obstacles to such an intepretation of non-regular representations. In Part II, we propose a justification for focusing on regular representations, pace Halvorson, by drawing on algebraic methods. 1. Introduction It is standard dogma that, according to quantum mechanics, a particle does not, and indeed cannot, have a precise value for its position or for its momentum. The reason is that in the standard Hilbert space representation for a free particle—the so-called Schr¨odinger Representation of the Weyl form of the canonical commutation relations (CCRs)—there arXiv:1805.05568v1 [physics.hist-ph] 15 May 2018 are no eigenstates for the position and momentum magnitudes, P and Q; the claim follows immediately, from this and standard interpretational principles.1 Email addresses: [email protected] (Benjamin Feintzeig), [email protected] (JB (Le)Manchak), [email protected] (Sarita Rosenstock), [email protected] (James Owen Weatherall) 1Namely, the Eigenstate–Eigenvalue link, according to which a system has an exact value of a given property if and only if its state is an eigenstate of the operator associated with that property.
    [Show full text]
  • Amenable Actions, Free Products and a Fixed Point Property
    Submitted exclusively to the London Mathematical Society doi:10.1112/S0000000000000000 AMENABLE ACTIONS, FREE PRODUCTS AND A FIXED POINT PROPERTY Y. GLASNER and N. MONOD Abstract We investigate the class of groups admitting an action on a set with an invariant mean. It turns out that many free products admit interesting actions of that kind. A complete characterization of such free products is given in terms of a fixed point property. 1. Introduction 1.A. In the early 20th century, the construction of Lebesgue’s measure was followed by the discovery of the Banach-Hausdorff-Tarski paradoxes ([20], [16], [4], [30]; see also [18]). This prompted von Neumann [32] to study the following general question: Given a group G acting on a set X, when is there an invariant mean on X ? Definition 1.1. An invariant mean is a G-invariant map µ from the collection of subsets of X to [0, 1] such that (i) µ(A ∪ B) = µ(A) + µ(B) when A ∩ B = ∅ and (ii) µ(X) = 1. If such a mean exists, the action is called amenable. Remarks 1.2. (1) For the study of the classical paradoxes, one also considers normalisations other than (ii). (2) The notion of amenability later introduced by Zimmer [33] and its variants [3] are different, being in a sense dual to the above. 1.B. The thrust of von Neumann’s article was to show that the paradoxes, or lack thereof, originate in the structure of the group rather than the set X. He therefore proposed the study of amenable groups (then “meßbare Gruppen”), i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourier Analysis Using Representation Theory
    FOURIER ANALYSIS USING REPRESENTATION THEORY NEEL PATEL Abstract. In this paper, it is our goal to develop the concept of Fourier transforms by using Representation Theory. We begin by laying basic def- initions that will help us understand the definition of a representation of a group. Then, we define representations and provide useful definitions and the- orems. We study representations and key theorems about representations such as Schur's Lemma. In addition, we develop the notions of irreducible repre- senations, *-representations, and equivalence classes of representations. After doing so, we develop the concept of matrix realizations of irreducible represen- ations. This concept will help us come up with a few theorems that lead up to our study of the Fourier transform. We will develop the definition of a Fourier transform and provide a few observations about the Fourier transform. Contents 1. Essential Definitions 1 2. Group Representations 3 3. Tensor Products 7 4. Matrix Realizations of Representations 8 5. Fourier Analysis 11 Acknowledgments 12 References 12 1. Essential Definitions Definition 1.1. An internal law of composition on a set R is a product map P : R × R ! R Definition 1.2. A group G, is a set with an internal law of composition such that: (i) P is associative. i.e. P (x; P (y; z)) = P (P (x; y); z) (ii) 9 an identity; e; 3 if x 2 G; then P (x; e) = P (e; x) = x (iii) 9 inverses 8x 2 G, denoted by x−1, 3 P (x; x−1) = P (x−1; x) = e: Let it be noted that we shorthand P (x; y) as xy.
    [Show full text]
  • Factorization of Unitary Representations of Adele Groups Paul Garrett [email protected]
    (February 19, 2005) Factorization of unitary representations of adele groups Paul Garrett [email protected] http://www.math.umn.edu/˜garrett/ The result sketched here is of fundamental importance in the ‘modern’ theory of automorphic forms and L-functions. What it amounts to is proof that representation theory is in principle relevant to study of automorphic forms and L-function. The goal here is to get to a coherent statement of the basic factorization theorem for irreducible unitary representations of reductive linear adele groups, starting from very minimal prerequisites. Thus, the writing is discursive and explanatory. All necessary background definitions are given. There are no proofs. Along the way, many basic concepts of wider importance are illustrated, as well. One disclaimer is necessary: while in principle this factorization result makes it clear that representation theory is relevant to study of automorphic forms and L-functions, in practice there are other things necessary. In effect, one needs to know that the representation theory of reductive linear p-adic groups is tractable, so that conversion of other issues into representation theory is a change for the better. Thus, beyond the material here, one will need to know (at least) the basic properties of spherical and unramified principal series representations of reductive linear groups over local fields. The fact that in some sense there is just one irreducible representation of a reductive linear p-adic group will have to be pursued later. References and historical notes
    [Show full text]
  • Topics for the NTCIR-10 Math Task Full-Text Search Queries
    Topics for the NTCIR-10 Math Task Full-Text Search Queries Michael Kohlhase (Editor) Jacobs University http://kwarc.info/kohlhase December 6, 2012 Abstract This document presents the challenge queries for the Math Information Retrieval Subtask in the NTCIR Math Task. Chapter 1 Introduction This document presents the challenge queries for the Math Information Retrieval (MIR) Subtask in the NTCIR Math Task. Participants have received the NTCIR-MIR dataset which contains 100 000 XHTML full texts of articles from the arXiv. Formulae are marked up as MathML (presentation markup with annotated content markup and LATEX source). 1.1 Subtasks The MIR Subtask in NTCIR-10 has three challenges; queries are given in chapters 2-4 below, the format is Formula Search (Automated) Participating IR systems obtain a list of queries consisting of formulae (possibly) with wildcards (query variables) and return for every query an ordered list of XPointer identifiers of formulae claimed to match the query, plus possible supporting evidence (e.g. a substitution for query variables). Full-Text Search (Automated) This is like formula search above, only that IR results are ordered lists of \hits" (i.e. XPointer references into the documents with a highlighted result fragments plus supporting evidence1). EdN:1 Open Information Retrieval (Semi-Automated) In contrast to the first two challenges, where the systems are run in batch-mode (i.e. without human intervention), in this one mathe- maticians will challenge the (human) participants to find specific information in a document corpus via human-readable descriptions (natural language text), which are translated by the participants to their IR systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 23 Infinite Dimensional Unitary Representations
    23 Infinite dimensional unitary representations Last lecture, we found the finite dimensional (non-unitary) representations of SL2(R). 23.1 Background about infinite dimensional representa- tions (of a Lie group G) What is an infinite dimensional representation? 1st guess Banach space acted on by G? This is no good for the following reasons: Look at the action of G on the functions on G (by left translation). We could use L2 functions, or L1 or Lp. These are completely different Banach spaces, but they are essentially the same representation. 2nd guess Hilbert space acted on by G? This is sort of okay. The problem is that finite dimensional representations of SL2(R) are NOT Hilbert space representations, so we are throwing away some interesting representations. Solution (Harish-Chandra) Take g to be the Lie algebra of G, and let K be the maximal compact subgroup. If V is an infinite dimensional representation of G, there is no reason why g should act on V . The simplest example fails. Let R act on L2(R) by left translation. Then d d 2 R d the Lie algebra is generated by dx (or i dx ) acting on L ( ), but dx of an L2 function is not in L2 in general. Let V be a Hilbert space. Set Vω to be the K-finite vectors of V , which are the vectors contained in a finite dimensional representation of K. The point is that K is compact, so V splits into a Hilbert space direct sum finite dimensional representations of K, at least if V is a Hilbert space.
    [Show full text]
  • Amenable Groups and Groups with the Fixed Point Property
    AMENABLE GROUPS AND GROUPS WITH THE FIXED POINT PROPERTY BY NEIL W. RICKERTÍ1) Introduction. A left amenable group (i.e., topological group) is a group with a left invariant mean. Roughly speaking this means that the group has a finitely additive set function of total mass 1, which is invariant under left translation by elements of the group. A precise definition will be given later. Groups of this type have been studied in [2], [5], [7], [8], [12], [13], and [20]. Most of the study to date has been concerned with discrete groups. In this paper we shall attempt to extend to locally compact groups much of what is known for the discrete case. Another interesting class of groups consists of those groups which have the fixed point property. This is the name given by Furstenberg to groups which have a fixed point every time they act affinely on a compact convex set in a locally convex topological linear space. Day [3] has shown that amenability implies the fixed point property. For discrete groups he has shown the converse. Along with amenable groups, we shall study, in this paper, groups with the fixed point property. This paper is based on part of the author's Ph.D. dissertation at Yale University. The author wishes to express his thanks to his adviser, F. J. Hahn. Notation. Group will always mean topological group. For a group G, G0 will denote the identity component. Likewise H0 will be the identity component of H, etc. Banach spaces, topological vector spaces, etc., will always be over the real field.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey on Geometric Group Theory
    M¨unster J. of Math. 1 (2008), 73–108 M¨unster Journal of Mathematics urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-43529465833 c M¨unster J. of Math. 2008 Survey on geometric group theory Wolfgang L¨uck (Communicated by Linus Kramer) Abstract. This article is a survey article on geometric group theory from the point of view of a non-expert who likes geometric group theory and uses it in his own research. Introduction This survey article on geometric group theory is written by a non-expert who likes geometric group theory and uses it in his own research. It is meant as a service for people who want to receive an impression and read an introduction about the topic and possibly will later pass to more elaborate and specialized survey articles or to actual research articles. There will be no proofs. Except for Theorem 7.4 all results have already appeared in the literature. There is to the author’s knowledge no obvious definition what geometric group theory really is. At any rate the basic idea is to pass from a finitely generated group to the geometry underlying its Cayley graph with the word metric. It turns out that only the large scale geometry is really an invariant of the group itself but that this large scale or coarse geometry carries a lot of information. This leads also to a surprising and intriguing variety of new results and structural insights about groups. A possible explanation for this may be that humans have a better intuition when they think in geometric terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 1: Group C*-Algebras and Actions of Finite Groups on C*-Algebras 11–29 July 2016
    The Second Summer School on Operator Algebras and Noncommutative Geometry 2016 East China Normal University, Shanghai Lecture 1: Group C*-algebras and Actions of Finite Groups on C*-Algebras 11{29 July 2016 Lecture 1 (11 July 2016): Group C*-algebras and Actions of Finite N. Christopher Phillips Groups on C*-Algebras Lecture 2 (13 July 2016): Introduction to Crossed Products and More University of Oregon Examples of Actions. Lecture 3 (15 July 2016): Crossed Products by Finite Groups; the 11 July 2016 Rokhlin Property. Lecture 4 (18 July 2016): Crossed Products by Actions with the Rokhlin Property. Lecture 5 (19 July 2016): Crossed Products of Tracially AF Algebras by Actions with the Tracial Rokhlin Property. Lecture 6 (20 July 2016): Applications and Problems. N. C. Phillips (U of Oregon) Group C*-Algebras, Actions of Finite Groups 11 July 2016 1 / 28 N. C. Phillips (U of Oregon) Group C*-Algebras, Actions of Finite Groups 11 July 2016 2 / 28 A rough outline of all six lectures General motivation The material to be described is part of the structure and classification The beginning: The C*-algebra of a group. theory for simple nuclear C*-algebras (the Elliott program). More Actions of finite groups on C*-algebras and examples. specifically, it is about proving that C*-algebras which appear in other Crossed products by actions of finite groups: elementary theory. parts of the theory (in these lectures, certain kinds of crossed product C*-algebras) satisfy the hypotheses of known classification theorems. More examples of actions. Crossed products by actions of finite groups: Some examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Amenability of Groups and G-Sets 1 Amenability of Groups and G-Sets
    Amenability of groups and G-sets 1 Amenability of groups and G-sets Laurent Bartholdi1 Abstract. This text surveys classical and recent results in the field of amenability of groups, from a combinatorial standpoint. It has served as the support of courses at the University of Gottingen¨ and the Ecole´ Normale Superieure.´ The goals of the text are (1) to be as self-contained as possible, so as to serve as a good introduction for newcomers to the field; (2) to stress the use of combinatorial tools, in collabo- ration with functional analysis, probability etc., with discrete groups in focus; (3) to consider from the beginning the more general notion of amenable actions; (4) to describe recent classes of examples, and in particular groups acting on Cantor sets and topological full groups. 1 Introduction In 1929, John von Neumann introduced in [103] the notion of amenability of G- spaces. Fundamentally, it considers the following property of a group G acting on a set X: The right G-set X is amenable if there exists a G-invariant mean on the power set of X, namely a function m: fsubsets of Xg ! [0;1] satisfying m(AtB) = m(A) + m(B) and m(X) = 1 and m(Ag) = m(A) for all A;B ⊆ X and all g 2 G. Amenability may be thought of as a finiteness condition, since non-empty finite G-sets are amenable with m(A) = #A=#X; it may also be thought of as a fixed-point property: on a general G-set there exists a G-invariant mean; on a compact G-set there exists a G-invariant measure, and on a convex compact G-set there exists a G-fixed point, see x6; on a G-measure space there exists a G-invariant measurable family of means on the orbits, see x6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 2 Representations of Finite Groups in This Chapter We Consider
    CHAPTER 2 Representations of Finite Groups In this chapter we consider only finite-dimensional representations. 2.1. Unitarity, complete reducibility, orthogonality relations Theorem 1. A representation of a finite group is unitary. c Proof. Let (π, V ) be a (finite- dimensional) representation of a finite group G = { g1, g2, . gn }. Let h·, ·i1 be any inner product on V . Set n X hv, wi = hπ(gj)v, π(gj)wi1, v, w ∈ V. j=1 Then it is clear from the definition that hπ(g)v, π(g)wi = hv, wi, v, w ∈ V, g ∈ G. Pn Note that if v ∈ V , then hv, vi = j=1hπ(gj)v, π(gj)vi1 and if v 6= 0, then π(gj)v 6= 0 for all j implies hπ(gj)v, π(gj)vi1 > 0 for all j. Hence v 6= 0 implies hv, vi > 0. The other properties of inner product are easy to verify for h·, ·i, using the fact that h·, ·i1 is an inner product, and each π(gj) is linear. The details are left as an exercise. qed The following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1 and a result from Chapter I stating that a finite-dimensional unitary representation is completely reducible. Theorem 2. A representation of a finite group is completely reducible. Example. Let G be a finite group acting on a finite set X. Let V be a complex vector space having a basis { vx1 , . , vxm } indexed by the elements x1, . , xm of X. If g ∈ G, let π(g) be the operator sending vxj to vg·xj , 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
    [Show full text]
  • N. Obata: Density of Natural Numbers and Lévy Group
    What is amenable group? d = asymptotic density aut(N) = permutations of N G = {π ∈ aut(N); lim |{n ≤ N < π(n)}|} = L´evy group N→∞ Amenable group planetmath.org: Let G be a locally compact group and L∞(G) be the space of all essentially bounded functions G → R with respect to the Haar measure. A linear functional on L∞(G) is called a mean if it maps the constant func- tion f(g) = 1 to 1 and non-negative functions to non-negative numbers. ∞ −1 Let Lg be the left action of g ∈ G on f ∈ L (G), i.e. (Lgf)(h) = f(g h). Then, a mean µ is said to be left invariant if µ(Lgf) = µ(f) for all g ∈ G and ∞ f ∈ L (G). Similarly, right invariant if µ(Rgf) = µ(f), where Rg is the right action (Rgf)(h) = f(gh). A locally compact group G is amenable if there is a left (or right) invariant mean on L∞(G). All finite groups and all abelian groups are amenable. Compact groups are amenable as the Haar measure is an (unique) invariant mean. If a group contains a free (non-abelian) subgroup on two generators then it is not amenable. wolfram: If a group contains a (non-abelian) free subgroup on two gen- erators, then it is not amenable. The converse to this statement is the Von Neumann conjecture, which was disproved in 1980. N. Obata: Density of Natural Numbers and L´evy Group F = sets with density Darboux property of asymptotic density is shown here.
    [Show full text]