Topological amenability vs amenability of an action
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
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:
- [$C^*$-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
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
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:
- [$C^*$-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
New contributor
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
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
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:
- [$C^*$-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
New contributor
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:
- [$C^*$-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
gr.group-theory ds.dynamical-systems c-star-algebras group-actions amenability
New contributor
New contributor
edited 7 hours ago
Martin Sleziak
2,90032028
2,90032028
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
13829
361
361
New contributor
New contributor
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
R W
10k21946
10k21946
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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