Topological amenability vs amenability of an action











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












Let $G$ be a discrete group and let $X$ be a compact, Hausdorff space.
Assume that $G$ acts on $X$ by homeomorphisms.
Consider the following two definitions:




  1. [$C^*$-algebras and finite dimensional approximations- Brown and Ozawa- Definition 4.3.5.]



The action is (topologically) amenable if there exists a net of
continuous maps $m_i: Xto Prob(G)$ s.t. for each $sin G$: $$
lim_{ito infty} (sup_{xin X} |s.m_i^x-m_i^{s.x}|_1)=0$$
where
$s.m_i^x(g)=m_i^x(s^{-1}g)$.




Now, regard $X$ as a $G$-set. Then one can define:



2.[Amenability of Groups and G-Sets, see definition in the introduction, for example]:




The action is amenable if there exists an invariant mean on the power
set of $X$.




I would expect that (1) will imply (2). Namely, that if the action of $G$ on $X$ is topologically amenable then it is amenable (set-theoretically).



However, I know very little about amenable actions and I would appreciate any help.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
    – YCor
    4 hours ago












  • @YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
    – R W
    3 hours ago










  • @RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
    – YCor
    3 hours ago















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












Let $G$ be a discrete group and let $X$ be a compact, Hausdorff space.
Assume that $G$ acts on $X$ by homeomorphisms.
Consider the following two definitions:




  1. [$C^*$-algebras and finite dimensional approximations- Brown and Ozawa- Definition 4.3.5.]



The action is (topologically) amenable if there exists a net of
continuous maps $m_i: Xto Prob(G)$ s.t. for each $sin G$: $$
lim_{ito infty} (sup_{xin X} |s.m_i^x-m_i^{s.x}|_1)=0$$
where
$s.m_i^x(g)=m_i^x(s^{-1}g)$.




Now, regard $X$ as a $G$-set. Then one can define:



2.[Amenability of Groups and G-Sets, see definition in the introduction, for example]:




The action is amenable if there exists an invariant mean on the power
set of $X$.




I would expect that (1) will imply (2). Namely, that if the action of $G$ on $X$ is topologically amenable then it is amenable (set-theoretically).



However, I know very little about amenable actions and I would appreciate any help.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
    – YCor
    4 hours ago












  • @YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
    – R W
    3 hours ago










  • @RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
    – YCor
    3 hours ago













up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1






1





Let $G$ be a discrete group and let $X$ be a compact, Hausdorff space.
Assume that $G$ acts on $X$ by homeomorphisms.
Consider the following two definitions:




  1. [$C^*$-algebras and finite dimensional approximations- Brown and Ozawa- Definition 4.3.5.]



The action is (topologically) amenable if there exists a net of
continuous maps $m_i: Xto Prob(G)$ s.t. for each $sin G$: $$
lim_{ito infty} (sup_{xin X} |s.m_i^x-m_i^{s.x}|_1)=0$$
where
$s.m_i^x(g)=m_i^x(s^{-1}g)$.




Now, regard $X$ as a $G$-set. Then one can define:



2.[Amenability of Groups and G-Sets, see definition in the introduction, for example]:




The action is amenable if there exists an invariant mean on the power
set of $X$.




I would expect that (1) will imply (2). Namely, that if the action of $G$ on $X$ is topologically amenable then it is amenable (set-theoretically).



However, I know very little about amenable actions and I would appreciate any help.



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











Let $G$ be a discrete group and let $X$ be a compact, Hausdorff space.
Assume that $G$ acts on $X$ by homeomorphisms.
Consider the following two definitions:




  1. [$C^*$-algebras and finite dimensional approximations- Brown and Ozawa- Definition 4.3.5.]



The action is (topologically) amenable if there exists a net of
continuous maps $m_i: Xto Prob(G)$ s.t. for each $sin G$: $$
lim_{ito infty} (sup_{xin X} |s.m_i^x-m_i^{s.x}|_1)=0$$
where
$s.m_i^x(g)=m_i^x(s^{-1}g)$.




Now, regard $X$ as a $G$-set. Then one can define:



2.[Amenability of Groups and G-Sets, see definition in the introduction, for example]:




The action is amenable if there exists an invariant mean on the power
set of $X$.




I would expect that (1) will imply (2). Namely, that if the action of $G$ on $X$ is topologically amenable then it is amenable (set-theoretically).



However, I know very little about amenable actions and I would appreciate any help.



Thanks.







gr.group-theory ds.dynamical-systems c-star-algebras group-actions amenability






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Martin Sleziak

2,90032028




2,90032028






New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 8 hours ago









13829

361




361




New contributor




13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






13829 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
    – YCor
    4 hours ago












  • @YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
    – R W
    3 hours ago










  • @RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
    – YCor
    3 hours ago


















  • I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
    – YCor
    4 hours ago












  • @YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
    – R W
    3 hours ago










  • @RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
    – YCor
    3 hours ago
















I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
– YCor
4 hours ago






I usually call 1 "Zimmer-amenable" and 2 "amenable". Actually the suffix -able is not well-suited to definition 1, and I think of def 1 as "ameaning" (moyennant in French, vs moyennable in sense 2). Introducing a confusing definition is somewhat hopelessly irreversible. Fortunately the definitions are so opposite that the confusion is somewhat limited, in the sense that any interesting statement using one definition is trivially false or tautologic in the other direction.
– YCor
4 hours ago














@YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
– R W
3 hours ago




@YCor Did anyone really use "moyennant" in this context?
– R W
3 hours ago












@RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
– YCor
3 hours ago




@RW I don't think so. But I would if I had to use this property at some point.
– YCor
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













The terminology is unfortunately confusing as these properties are in a sense "orthogonal". The definition in terms of existence of an invariant mean on the action space (your definition 2) goes back to von Neumann, whereas your definition 1 goes back to Zimmer who introduced it (in the measure category and in a somewhat different form though) in 1977. Amenability of the group $G$ is equivalent to the amenability in the sense of Definition 1 of its trivial action on the one-point space and to the amenability in the sense of Definition 2 of its action on itself.



For an explicit counterexample to your claim take the boundary action of a free group. It is topologically amenable in the sense of Definition 1, but not amenable in the sense of Definition 2.



A counterexample in the opposite direction is provided just by the trivial action of any non-amenable group on a singleton.






share|cite|improve this answer























    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    13829 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317259%2ftopological-amenability-vs-amenability-of-an-action%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote













    The terminology is unfortunately confusing as these properties are in a sense "orthogonal". The definition in terms of existence of an invariant mean on the action space (your definition 2) goes back to von Neumann, whereas your definition 1 goes back to Zimmer who introduced it (in the measure category and in a somewhat different form though) in 1977. Amenability of the group $G$ is equivalent to the amenability in the sense of Definition 1 of its trivial action on the one-point space and to the amenability in the sense of Definition 2 of its action on itself.



    For an explicit counterexample to your claim take the boundary action of a free group. It is topologically amenable in the sense of Definition 1, but not amenable in the sense of Definition 2.



    A counterexample in the opposite direction is provided just by the trivial action of any non-amenable group on a singleton.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      The terminology is unfortunately confusing as these properties are in a sense "orthogonal". The definition in terms of existence of an invariant mean on the action space (your definition 2) goes back to von Neumann, whereas your definition 1 goes back to Zimmer who introduced it (in the measure category and in a somewhat different form though) in 1977. Amenability of the group $G$ is equivalent to the amenability in the sense of Definition 1 of its trivial action on the one-point space and to the amenability in the sense of Definition 2 of its action on itself.



      For an explicit counterexample to your claim take the boundary action of a free group. It is topologically amenable in the sense of Definition 1, but not amenable in the sense of Definition 2.



      A counterexample in the opposite direction is provided just by the trivial action of any non-amenable group on a singleton.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        The terminology is unfortunately confusing as these properties are in a sense "orthogonal". The definition in terms of existence of an invariant mean on the action space (your definition 2) goes back to von Neumann, whereas your definition 1 goes back to Zimmer who introduced it (in the measure category and in a somewhat different form though) in 1977. Amenability of the group $G$ is equivalent to the amenability in the sense of Definition 1 of its trivial action on the one-point space and to the amenability in the sense of Definition 2 of its action on itself.



        For an explicit counterexample to your claim take the boundary action of a free group. It is topologically amenable in the sense of Definition 1, but not amenable in the sense of Definition 2.



        A counterexample in the opposite direction is provided just by the trivial action of any non-amenable group on a singleton.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        The terminology is unfortunately confusing as these properties are in a sense "orthogonal". The definition in terms of existence of an invariant mean on the action space (your definition 2) goes back to von Neumann, whereas your definition 1 goes back to Zimmer who introduced it (in the measure category and in a somewhat different form though) in 1977. Amenability of the group $G$ is equivalent to the amenability in the sense of Definition 1 of its trivial action on the one-point space and to the amenability in the sense of Definition 2 of its action on itself.



        For an explicit counterexample to your claim take the boundary action of a free group. It is topologically amenable in the sense of Definition 1, but not amenable in the sense of Definition 2.



        A counterexample in the opposite direction is provided just by the trivial action of any non-amenable group on a singleton.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 5 hours ago

























        answered 6 hours ago









        R W

        10k21946




        10k21946






















            13829 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            13829 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            13829 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            13829 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317259%2ftopological-amenability-vs-amenability-of-an-action%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre