Approximating simple locally compact groups by their dense locally compact subgroups
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace, Colin D. Reid, and Phillip Wesolek

TL;DR
This paper investigates dense locally compact subgroups within a class of simple, totally disconnected groups, introducing a broader class with similar properties and analyzing their structure and automorphisms.
Contribution
It introduces a new class of almost simple groups that contains the known class and remains stable under taking dense subgroups, extending the understanding of their structure.
Findings
Identified a class $\\mathscr{R}$ of almost simple groups larger than $\\mathscr{S}$.
Proved $\\mathscr{R}$ shares many properties with $\\mathscr{S}$.
Established new results on Sylow subgroups and automorphism groups for $\\mathscr{R}$.
Abstract
The class, denoted by , of totally disconnected locally compact groups which are non-discrete, compactly generated, and topologically simple contains many compelling examples. In recent years, a general theory for these groups, which studies the interaction between the compact open subgroups and the global structure, has emerged. In this article, we study the non-discrete totally disconnected locally compact groups that admit a continuous embedding with dense image into some ; that is, we consider the dense locally compact subgroups of groups . We identify a class of almost simple groups which properly contains and is moreover stable under passing to a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup. We show that enjoys many of the same properties previously obtained for andâŠ
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
\volumeyear
2017 \paperID?
\abbrevauthor
P.-E. Caprace, C. D. Reid, and P. Wesolek \headabbrevauthorCaprace, P.-E., Reid, C. D., and Wesolek, P.
\correspdetails
Approximating simple locally compact groups by their dense locally compact subgroups
Pierre-Emmanuel Caprace
1
ââ
Colin Reid
2
ââ
and Phillip Wesolek
3
11affiliationmark: Université catholique de Louvain, IRMP, Chemin du Cyclotron 2, bte L7.01.02, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique; 22affiliationmark: University of Newcastle, School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia; and 33affiliationmark: Binghamton University, Department of Mathematical Sciences, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, New York 13902-6000, USA
Abstract
The class of totally disconnected locally compact (t.d.l.c.) groups that are non-discrete, compactly generated, and topologically simple contains many compelling examples. In recent years, a general theory for these groups, which studies the interaction between the compact open subgroups and the global structure, has emerged. In this article, we study the non-discrete t.d.l.c. groups that admit a continuous embedding with dense image into some ; that is, we consider the dense locally compact subgroups of groups . We identify a class of almost simple groups which properly contains and is moreover stable under passing to a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup. We show that enjoys many of the same properties previously obtained for and establish various original results for that are also new for the subclass , notably concerning the structure of the local Sylow subgroups and the full automorphism group.
Contents
-
3.2 Pro-nilpotent groups with topologically finitely generated compact open subgroups
-
6.3 Robustly monolithic groups are not regionally elementary
1 Introduction
âŠthe early hot dense phase was unavoidableâŠ
(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1998)
In exploring the structure of locally compact groups, the occurrence of dense locally compact subgroups is unavoidable. Indeed, given a locally compact group and closed subgroups such that is normal, the abstract isomorphism
[TABLE]
can notoriously fail to be a homeomorphism (see [Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, (5.39.d)]). Nevertheless, it is always a continuous, injective homomorphism of the locally compact group onto a dense subgroup of the locally compact group . This naturally leads us to define a dense embedding to be a continuous, injective homomorphism of a locally compact group to a locally compact group such that is dense in . A dense locally compact subgroup of a locally compact group is defined as a locally compact group that admits a dense embedding into .
The point of view adopted in this paper is to view a dense embedding as an algebraic approximation of by . We are thus led to the following question: To what extent is the structure of governed by that of ? We are especially interested in the case where is topologically simple.
An obstruction to such a transfer of structure from to is provided by the inescapable situation where is discrete. Every locally compact group admits at least one, and usually many, dense embeddings of discrete groups. A topologically simple group often contains finitely generated dense free subgroups; see Breuillard & Gelander, [2003] for the emblematic case of simple Lie groups.
It can also happen that every proper dense locally compact subgroup is discrete. This occurs in a simple Lie group or in a simple algebraic group over a local field (see §3). This rigidity phenomenon, however, happens to be rather atypical. By work of the second named author, every totally disconnected locally compact (t.d.l.c.) group containing two infinite subgroups that are respectively pro- and pro- for two distinct primes and admits natural non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups that are often proper (see Reid, [2013] and §2.4 below). In particular, groups belonging to the class consisting of the non-discrete, compactly generated, topologically simple t.d.l.c. groups often have non-discrete proper dense locally compact subgroups.111The class contains many compelling examples of locally compact groups, including simple algebraic groups over non-archimedean local fields, many groups acting on trees, groups acting on cube complexes, and groups almost acting on trees. We refer to [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Appendix A] and references therein.
Non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups of groups in can nevertheless fail to be simple (see [Le Boudec,, 2016, Corollary 4.20]). They may be topologically simple but not -compact (see Proposition 1). Moreover, a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup of a group in can fail to have any compactly generated subgroup that is dense in (see Example 9.9). The starting point of this work is the observation that for groups in , there is a form of structural transfer from the ambient group to a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup: whenever is non-discrete, the simplicity of is strongly reflected in the normal subgroup structure of . In establishing a precise description of that phenomenon, we are led to consider a class of almost simple groups, denoted by , that is strictly larger than and is closed under taking non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups.
Remark 1.0.1**.**
In topological group theory, it is customary to use the term âlocalâ to qualify a property that is satisfied by all members of some basis of identity neighborhoods (in the case of t.d.l.c. groups, the basis of identity neighborhoods is understood to consist of compact open subgroups), while the term âglobalâ is used in reference to the properties of the whole ambient group. We introduce the term âregionalâ to qualify a property satisfied at an intermediate scale: a property is said to hold regionally if it is satisfied by all members of an exhaustion of the ambient group by a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of .
A particular example is the following: in the literature, the term âlocally ellipticâ has been used for the property that every compactly generated closed subgroup is compact. This use of âlocallyâ is at odds with our convention of using âlocallyâ only to refer to properties exhibited by arbitrarily small neighborhoods of the identity. We will therefore use the alternative term âregionally compactâ, which has no such ambiguity and emphasizes the correct contrast with the weaker property âlocally compactâ.
1.1 Robustly monolithic groups
The normal core of a subgroup in is . A t.d.l.c. group is called regionally expansive if some compactly generated open subgroup has a compact open subgroup such that the normal core of in is trivial. A locally compact group is monolithic if the intersection of all non-trivial closed normal subgroups is non-trivial, and that intersection is then called the monolith, and denoted by . In particular is topologically simple if and only if is monolithic and . More generally, a locally compact group that is monolithic with a topologically simple monolith is called topologically almost simple. Notice that a finite group (with the discrete topology) is topologically almost simple if and only if it is almost simple in the standard terminology.
Definition 1.1.1**.**
A t.d.l.c. group is called robustly monolithic if it is monolithic, and the monolith is non-discrete, regionally expansive, and topologically simple. In particular, every member of is topologically almost simple. We denote by the class of robustly monolithic groups.
Our first main result ensures that the class is stable under taking non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups.
Theorem 1.1.2** (See Theorem 5.4.1).**
Every non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup of any also belongs to .
Being robustly monolithic is in fact a regional phenomenon, although the definition has obvious global conditions. This is one of the key features of the class .
Theorem 1.1.3** (Theorem 5.2.2).**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group and let be a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with . The following assertions are equivalent.
- (i)
. 2. (ii)
There is such that for all .
A first motivation for considering is a natural class of dense locally compact subgroups arising from a result of the second named author, described in Reid, [2013] and recalled in Theorem 2.4.5 below. Given a t.d.l.c. group that is not locally pro-, but that contains an infinite pro- subgroup, then admits a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup that is locally pro-. Combining that result with the theorem above, every group in can be âapproximatedâ by locally pro- groups in .
Corollary 1.1.4** (Proposition 8.1.2).**
Let . Then there is a unique finite set of primes such that is locally pro- and for each , there is a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup of , necessarily in , that is locally pro-.
In particular the monolith is a non-discrete topologically simple dense locally pro- subgroup of , so that every topologically simple group in admits a topologically simple dense locally compact subgroup that is locally pro- for each .
Another motivation to consider the class , rather than just , comes from the question of how much the structure of a simple t.d.l.c. group is determined locally - i.e. by an arbitrarily small open neighborhood of the identity. In contrast to the case of simple Lie groups, there are a number of examples of groups in that are locally but not globally isomorphic. For example, S.M. Smith (Smith, [2017]) constructs a family of pairwise non-isomorphic groups that are all locally isomorphic.
The control that the local structure exerts on the global structure can be made precise, using a special case of a construction Barnea *et al. *, [2011] of BarneaâErshovâWeigel (see also Caprace & De Medts, [2011]).
Theorem 1.1.5** (See §9.1).**
Let be a topologically simple group in . Then there is a t.d.l.c. group , unique up to isomorphism, with an open monolith such that the following hold.
- (i)
* embeds as an open subgroup of .* 2. (ii)
For any t.d.l.c. group locally isomorphic to , there is an open, continuous homomorphism , and if is topologically simple. 3. (iii)
Both and are members of . In particular is topologically simple.
The group encapsulates all possible global structure admissible in a group locally isomorphic to , including all automorphisms of such a group, and the group represents the largest possible topologically simple group that is locally isomorphic to . Furthermore, both of these groups lie in . We remark that even if , the group may not be in . For instance, if is one of the aforementioned examples of Smith, is not even -compact. Nevertheless, results for still apply to both and .
1.2 Properties of robustly monolithic groups
The second main thrust of the article is to explore the properties of the groups in . As will become clear, the flexibility of the class allows us not only to show that enjoys many of the same properties as but also to derive properties novel even for .
Theorem 1.2.1** (See Theorem 8.3.2).**
Let . There is a finite set of primes such that any locally compact group that acts continuously and faithfully by topological group automorphisms on is a locally pro- t.d.l.c. group.
Theorem 1.2.2** (See Corollary 5.6.2).**
Let , be a compact open subgroup of , and be a pro--Sylow subgroup of . If is infinite, then the only virtually solvable normal subgroup of is the trivial group. In particular, is not solvable.
The class of regionally elementary groups is the smallest class of t.d.l.c. groups containing the second countable profinite groups and discrete groups and closed under taking closed subgroups, Hausdorff quotients, group extensions, and directed unions of open subgroups. The class contains no regionally elementary groups by the results of Wesolek, [2015].
Theorem 1.2.3** (See Corollary 6.3.2).**
The class contains no regionally elementary groups.
Corollary 1.2.4**.**
Let . Every regionally elementary dense locally compact subgroup of is discrete.
In Caprace *et al. *, [2017a], a structure theory of t.d.l.c. groups via locally normal subgroups, i.e. subgroups with open normalizer, is developed. This theory is applied to groups in in Caprace *et al. *, [2017b]. It turns out that the results for the class generalize to the class .
A t.d.l.c. group is [A]-semisimple if the only element with open centralizer is the identity and the only abelian subgroup with open normalizer is the trivial group. The presence of this property allows for the application of the more powerful tools developed in Caprace *et al. *, [2017a].
Theorem 1.2.5** (Proposition 5.1.2).**
Every element of is [A]-semisimple.
Any -semisimple t.d.l.c. group has an associated Boolean algebra on which it acts, denoted by and called the centralizer lattice. Recall a Boolean algebra has a canonically associated compact space called the Stone space.
Theorem 1.2.6** (Theorem 7.3.3).**
For , the -action on the Stone space is minimal, strongly proximal, and has a compressible open set. In particular, if is amenable, then every non-trivial locally normal subgroup of has trivial centralizer.
Corollary 1.2.7** (See Corollary 7.3.4).**
Let be a topologically simple group in . If has an open subgroup of the form such that and are non-trivial closed subgroups, then is non-amenable and abstractly simple.
Our investigations conclude with several examples of groups in the class . We exhibit an example of a non--compact group in that appears as a dense locally compact subgroup of a group in (see Subsection 9.3). We additionally characterize the groups , defined by A. Le Boudec in Le Boudec, [2016], which are members of (see Theorem 14). The following independently interesting fact about the groups is discovered along the way.
Theorem 1.2.8** (See Proposition 13).**
Take , let be a legal coloring of the -regular tree, and be such that the action of is not free. If , then is virtually simple if and only if is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers.
1.3 Structure of article
Section 2 covers preliminaries on t.d.l.c. groups; the results of this section are used throughout the work. Section 3 is independent of all sections besides Section 2. It serves primarily as motivation and to provide a setting for our results, and it can be safely skipped. Sections 4 and 5 contain most of the main results of the article. Section 6 is an immediate application of the results of Sections 4 and 5. The results of Section 6 are not used in later sections, so it can be skipped. Sections 7 and 8 contain the remainder of our main results and should be read together. Section 9 presents several examples and is self-contained, except for the use of a theorem from Section 5.
2 Preliminaries
A family of subsets of a set indexed by a directed set is called filtering if for all there exists such that . For a group acting on a set , the pointwise stabilizer of in is denoted by . For a group , the commutator of is . A topological group is always assumed to be Hausdorff.
2.1 Compactly generated t.d.l.c. groups
Our work requires a number of results on compactly generated t.d.l.c. groups.
Proposition 2.1.1** ([Caprace & Monod,, 2011, Proposition 2.5]).**
Let be a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group, be a filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups of , and a compact open subgroup of . If has trivial intersection, then there is and a closed with such that is discrete. In particular, if is without a non-trivial compact or discrete normal subgroup, then every filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups has a non-trivial intersection.
A version of the following is given by [Caprace & Monod,, 2017, Proposition 2.6 (corrected)]. For the readerâs convenience, we give a simplified statement and proof here.
Theorem 2.1.2**.**
Suppose that is a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group such that has no infinite discrete normal subgroups and there is compact and open such that the normal core of in is trivial. Then every non-trivial closed normal subgroup of contains a minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroup.
Proof.
Let be a non-trivial normal subgroup of and let be the set of closed normal subgroups of such that ; it suffices to show that has a minimal element. Let be a chain in , let and suppose that . Then by Proposition 2.1.1, there is and a closed with such that is discrete. Since the normal core of in is trivial, we must have , so in fact is discrete. By hypothesis, it follows that is finite. Since is a chain, we realize as the intersection of elements of contained in . But then is the intersection of a finite chain of non-trivial finite normal subgroups, so must itself be non-trivial, contrary to our earlier assumption. In particular, is a lower bound for in . Hence by Zornâs lemma, has a minimal element as required. â
Proposition 2.1.3** ([Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Proposition 4.6]).**
Let be a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group and be a compact open subgroup. If the normal core of in is trivial, then is pro- for some finite set of primes .
Given a locally compact group , the intersection of all open normal subgroups of is denoted by and called the discrete residual of . If , we say that is residually discrete. A locally compact group has small invariant neighborhoods (or is called a SIN-group) if it admits a basis of conjugation invariant open identity neighborhoods.
Proposition 2.1.4** ([Caprace & Monod,, 2011, Corollary 4.1]).**
Let be a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group. Then is residually discrete if and only if it has a basis of identity neighborhoods consisting of compact open normal subgroups. In particular, if is residually discrete, then is a SIN-group.
Every closed subgroup of a SIN-group is a SIN-group. The property also passes to quotients.
Lemma 2.1.5**.**
Let be a locally compact SIN-group, be a closed subgroup of , and be closed. Then is a SIN-group.
Proof.
Let be a basis of open conjugation-invariant identity neighborhoods in and let be an open identity neighborhood in . Then is an identity neighborhood in , so there is an identity neighborhood in such that . In turn, for some . It follows that , and hence is an open neighborhood of the identity in contained in . By construction, is conjugation-invariant under the action of , and hence is conjugation-invariant in . The set is thus a basis of conjugation-invariant open identity neighborhoods in , and is a SIN-group. â
We recall a generation property of compactly generated t.d.l.c. groups.
Lemma 2.1.6** ([Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Proposition 4.1]).**
Let be a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group and be a compact open subgroup. Given any abstract subgroup such that , there exists a finite subset satisfying the following properties:
- (i)
, and 2. (ii)
Given any for , we have .
Say a (not necessarily closed) subgroup of a locally compact group is cocompact (or syndetic) if there is a compact subset of such that .
We note that compact generation is stable under taking cocompact subgroups.
Proposition 2.1.7** (Macbeath & Ćwierczkowski, [1959]).**
Let be a locally compact group and let be a closed cocompact subgroup of . Then is compactly generated if and only if is compactly generated.
More generally, a variation on Lemma 2.1.6 allows us to control the structure of cocompact subgroups using compactly generated open subgroups.
Lemma 2.1.8**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group, be a cocompact subgroup of , and be a compactly generated open subgroup of . Then there exists a finite subset such that is cocompact in .
Proof.
Fix a compact open subgroup of . Since is cocompact in , we can write for some finite set . The set , which is a union of -double cosets in , can be written as for . We can further choose , so we may write as . We deduce that is cocompact in , and hence is compactly generated. By Lemma 2.1.6, for a compact subgroup of and a finite subset of . Thus , and since each of the sets is compact, we conclude that is cocompact in . â
2.2 Automorphism groups of t.d.l.c. groups
Let be a locally compact group. We denote by the group of homeomorphic automorphisms of . The group is naturally endowed with a topology, the so-called Braconnier topology (also sometimes called the Birkhoff topology), with respect to which it is a Hausdorff topological group.
We collect several facts concerning groups acting on t.d.l.c. groups. Our first lemma is an easy exercise in the definitions.
Lemma 2.2.1**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group acting continuously and faithfully on a t.d.l.c. group by topological group automorphisms. Let be the induced homomorphism and be the natural homomorphism. The following hold.
- (i)
The group is a t.d.l.c. group under the product topology; 2. (ii)
* is continuous;* 3. (iii)
, where in the obvious way; 4. (iv)
if , then , where is the usual projection; and 5. (v)
the map defined by is a continuous, injective homomorphism.
Proof.
Claim (i) is a classical fact; see, for example, [Bourbaki,, 1998, III.2.10 Proposition 28] or [Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, (6.20)].
Claim (ii) follows from (i) and [Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, Theorem (26.7)].
For (iii), choose and take . Then,
[TABLE]
We conclude that if and only if for all . That is to say, if and only if . Hence, .
For (iv), take such that . For every , it is then the case that . Let us compute this commutator:
[TABLE]
Since this commutator lies in , . The map is injective, since , so we deduce that for all . Hence, for all , so is such that . In view of Claim (iii), we conclude that , and therefore, .
(v). Let . We have
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
We conclude that is a homomorphism, and it is clearly also continuous. That is injective follows from the fact that the action of is faithful. â
We record another basic property of the Braconnier topology.
Proposition 2.2.2** ([Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, Theorem (26.8)]).**
For any t.d.l.c. group , the automorphism group is totally disconnected.
2.3 Quasi-centralizers
The quasi-centralizer, denoted by , is defined to be the set of which centralize an open subgroup of . We stress that quasi-centralizers are not closed in general.
The following basic observation about quasi-centralizers will be useful to control discrete subgroups.
Lemma 2.3.1**.**
Let be a topological group, be a closed subgroup, and be a discrete subgroup of that is normalized by . Then .
Proof.
Fix . The -conjugacy class of is discrete. Since is a continuous map from to , it follows that is open in , so . â
The quasi-center of a t.d.l.c. group , denoted by , is the set of elements with an open centralizer. For any compact open subgroup , we see that . In particular, is normal in .
We recall also the following relationship between the centralizer and quasi-centralizer of a subgroup.
Lemma 2.3.2** ([Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Lemma 3.8(i)]).**
Let be a topological group and be a closed subgroup of such that . Then
[TABLE]
2.4 Commensuration and localization
Let be a group and be a subgroup. A subgroup is commensurate to if is of finite index in both and in . Given , we define the commensurator of in , denoted by , to be the set of such that and are commensurate. In topological groups, the relationship between the quasi-centralizer and the commensurator of a compact subgroup is analogous to the relationship between the centralizer and the normalizer.
Lemma 2.4.1**.**
Let be a topological group and be any subgroup. For compact, the quasi-centralizer is a normal subgroup of the commensurator .
Proof.
Given , then centralizes an open subgroup of ; since is compact, has finite index, and hence , showing that . Taking and , the element centralizes an open subgroup of , and centralizes an open subgroup of . The element thus centralizes an open subgroup of . Since , the subgroup is open in , hence , as required. â
Commensurators additionally admit a canonical t.d.l.c. group topology.
Proposition 2.4.2** (Reid, [2013]).**
If is a compact subgroup of a t.d.l.c. group , then admits a unique t.d.l.c. group topology such that the inclusion map from to is continuous and open.
Corollary 2.4.3**.**
The inclusion map is a continuous, injective homomorphism.
The t.d.l.c. group topology on is called the -localized topology. The group endowed with the -localized topology is denoted by and called the localization of at . There is a natural source of localizations that produces dense locally compact subgroups of the ambient group .
Definition 2.4.4**.**
Let be a profinite group and let be a prime. A pro--Sylow subgroup of is a closed subgroup of , such that is maximal among the pro- subgroups of . Equivalently, by Sylowâs theorem, is a closed subgroup of with the property that for every open normal subgroup of , the order of is a power of and the index is coprime to .
Theorem 2.4.5** ([Reid,, 2013, Theorem 1.2]).**
Suppose that is a t.d.l.c. group with a compact open subgroup. If is a pro--Sylow subgroup of for some prime , then is dense. Further, the isomorphism type of is independent of the choice of and pro--Sylow subgroup .
In view of the previous theorem, we set to be the localization of at some (equivalently) any pro--Sylow subgroup of a compact open subgroup, following Reid, [2013]. We call the -localization of .
The -localizations provide a tool to approximate arbitrary t.d.l.c. groups by t.d.l.c. groups that are locally pro-. A useful tool to understand when the compact open subgroups of the -localization are topologically finitely generated is provided by a consequence of Tateâs normal -complement theorem on finite groups. A profinite group is topologically finitely generated if it admits a dense finitely generated subgroup.
For a prime , the set of primes different from is denoted by . For a set of primes , the -core of a profinite group , denoted by , is the subgroup generated by all normal pro- subgroups. We write for the smallest normal subgroup such that is a pro- group. Notice that , with equality if and only if is a pro- group.
For a group and a positive integer, denotes the subgroup .
Theorem 2.4.6** (Tate, [1964]).**
Let be a finite group and let be a -Sylow subgroup of . If is isomorphic to , then .
The following corollary was given as [Reid,, 2010, Corollary 2.2.2]; a similar observation was also used in Melânikov, [1996]. For clarity, we reprove it here.
Corollary 2.4.7**.**
Let be a profinite group, be a prime, and be a pro--Sylow subgroup of . If is topologically finitely generated, then is virtually pro-.
Proof.
Since is topologically finitely generated, we see that is a topologically finitely generated elementary abelian group, and hence is open in . It follows that there is an open normal subgroup of such that . Let , let be an open normal subgroup of contained in , and write for the image of any under the quotient map from to . The group is a pro--Sylow subgroup of with , and . Thus, is a -group of the same number of generators as , ensuring that . Theorem 2.4.6 now implies that . Since is allowed to range over a base of identity neighborhoods, we conclude that . Therefore, is a pro- group, so . Letting be the normal core of in , we see that
[TABLE]
It follows that is pro-, and hence is virtually pro-. â
3 Connected groups and locally pro-nilpotent groups
Some non-discrete simple locally compact groups have the property that every dense embedding into an arbitrary locally compact group is surjective. Examples include the simple Lie groups (see [Omori,, 1966, Corollary 1.1]) and the simple algebraic groups over local fields (see [Bader & Gelander,, 2017, Corollary 1.4]). We begin our explorations by noting that simple Lie groups and simple algebraic groups over local fields also enjoy a dual property: Denoting such a group by , every dense embedding of a non-discrete locally compact group is surjective.
3.1 Connected groups
Proposition 3.1.1** ([Hochschild,, 1965, Ch. XVI, Theorem 2.1]).**
Let and be connected Lie groups and be a dense embedding. Then is normal in , and the quotient is abelian.
Corollary 3.1.2**.**
If is a connected locally compact group that is topologically simple, then every proper dense locally compact subgroup is discrete.
Proof.
Suppose that is a locally compact group and that is a dense embedding. Let us suppose further that is non-discrete. We argue that is onto.
By the solution to Hilbertâs fifth problem, see [Montgomery & Zippin,, 1955, Theorem 4.6], is a connected Lie group over . Applying [Bourbaki,, 1989, III.8.2 Corollary 1], is also a Lie group over . Since is non-discrete it follows that is non-trivial. The non-trivial group is normalized by the dense subgroup of . Therefore is dense since is topologically simple. We deduce from Proposition 3.1.1 that is a normal subgroup of containing . Invoking the classical fact that in a topologically simple connected Lie group , we have , we conclude that . The homomorphism is thus onto. â
3.2 Pro-nilpotent groups with topologically finitely generated compact open subgroups
As mentioned in the introduction, t.d.l.c. groups in general possess non-discrete proper dense locally compact subgroups. The following result shows that the existence of such subgroups depends on the structure of compact open subgroups. The following result should be compared with Proposition 3.1.1.
Recall that subgroup of a topological group is called locally normal if its normalizer is open.
Proposition 3.2.1**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups and be a dense embedding. Assume that has a compact open subgroup which is a topologically finitely generated pronilpotent pro- group for a finite set of primes .
- (i)
There is a compact open subgroup such that is a commensurated locally normal subgroup of , and the normal closure is contained in . 2. (ii)
If is topologically simple and is non-discrete, then is normal in , and the quotient is abelian.
Proof.
Let be a compact open subgroup of that is a topologically finitely generated pronilpotent pro- group. By [Ribes & Zalesskii,, 2010, Proposition 2.3.8], is a direct product of pro- groups , one for each ; it follows that is topologically finitely generated for each . By [Ribes & Zalesskii,, 2010, Proposition 2.8.10], the Frattini subgroup of is open in , and hence is open in . Since has dense image in , it contains a finite subset such that , so , by the properties of the Frattini subgroup.
Let now be a compact open subgroup of contained in the open subgroup . We now consider , which is a compactly generated open subgroup of . The image is contained in the profinite group , hence is residually finite. Proposition 2.1.4 now ensures that there is an open subgroup which is normal in . The image is a compact subgroup of whose normalizer contains , so contains and is thus open. In particular, is open and dense, since it contains , hence . We have , so the conjugation action of is transitive on the -conjugacy class of . This confirms that is contained in , proving (i).
Assume now that is topologically simple and non-discrete. Then is non-trivial. Hence the group is a non-trivial normal subgroup of and is thus dense. Since is a topologically finitely generated pronilpotent pro- group, its derived group is closed and contained in every dense normal subgroup of by [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Theorem 5.21]. In particular, contains , and it follows that is abelian. We conclude that by (i), and assertion (ii) follows. â
In Subsection 9.3, we give an example showing that âtopologically finitely generatedâ cannot be removed from the statement of Proposition 3.2.1.
Corollary 3.2.2**.**
If is abstractly simple and has a topologically finitely generated pro-nilpotent compact open subgroup, then every proper dense locally compact subgroup is discrete.
Proof.
By Proposition 2.1.3, every compact open subgroup of is locally pro- for a finite set of primes . The required assertion is thus an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.2.1(ii). â
Corollary 3.2.3**.**
Let be an absolutely simple, simply connected, isotropic algebraic group over a non-archimedean local field . Every proper dense locally compact subgroup of is discrete.
Proof.
The group belongs to the class and is abstractly simple, see [Caprace & Stulemeijer,, 2015, Theorems 2.2 and 2.4] and Tits, [1964]. In view of Corollary 3.2.2, it remains to show that has a compact open pro- subgroup that is topologically finitely generated. The result [Caprace & Stulemeijer,, 2015, Theorem 2.6] ensures that admits a non-virtually abelian hereditarily just infinite compact open pro- subgroup. Hereditarily just-infinite pro- groups are topologically finitely generated, so the desired result follows. â
Remark 3.2.4**.**
We remark that there also exist groups of a non-algebraic origin in that satisfy the hypotheses of Corollary 3.2.2. For example, many locally compact KacâMoody groups do; see Capdeboscq & RĂ©my, [2014] and Marquis, [2014]. Similarly, the group admitting the profinite completion of the Grigorchuk group as a compact open subgroup satisfies the hypotheses; see [Barnea *et al. *,, 2011, Theorem 4.16].
4 Regionally expansive groups
We here isolate the class of regionally expansive groups. The results herein suggest that regional expansiveness is a weak form of compact generation with better stability properties. This class will play a central role in the definition of the class in the next section.
4.1 Definition and basic properties
The following definition comes from the literature on topological dynamical systems (see for instance Lam, [1970]).
Definition 4.1.1**.**
Let be a uniform space and let be a group of homeomorphisms of . The action of is expansive if there is some entourage such that, whenever is a pair of points such that for all , then .
When is a topological group, it is natural to equip with the right uniformity and let it act on itself by conjugation; we then say that is expansive as a topological group if this action is expansive. There is an easy equivalent characterization of what it means for a topological group to be expansive.
Lemma 4.1.2**.**
A topological group is expansive if and only if there is an identity neighborhood in such that .
Proof.
Suppose is expansive. Then there is an entourage such that whenever are such that for all , then . Since is an entourage, there is an identity neighborhood such that for all . Thus if is such that for all , then . We conclude that .
Conversely, suppose that is an identity neighborhood such that , and let be the entourage . Let be such that for all . Then for all we have , or in other words, . Since , it follows that , so . Thus is expansive. â
In particular, every discrete group is expansive, and every group in is expansive. A more subtle example of a compactly generated expansive group is . The group has a compact open normal subgroup, namely , but any proper open subgroup of has trivial normal core. On the other hand, it is easy to see that a non-discrete compact group cannot be expansive: indeed, every compact group has arbitrarily small invariant neighborhoods of the identity.
If is a t.d.l.c. group, then we can express the property of being expansive in terms of closed normal subgroups. We will use these equivalent forms of the definition without further comment.
Lemma 4.1.3**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group. Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
* is expansive;* 2. (ii)
There is a compact open subgroup such that ; 3. (iii)
Given a filtering family of non-trivial compact normal subgroups of , then is non-trivial.
Proof.
Suppose is expansive; given Lemma 4.1.2, let be an identity neighborhood in such that . Then by Van Dantzigâs theorem, contains a compact open subgroup of ; we then have . Thus implies .
Suppose is a compact open subgroup of such that , and let be a filtering family of non-trivial compact normal subgroups of . Then for each , we see that . Fix . Since is a filtering family, we have ; in turn, contains . Now is a filtering family of non-empty closed subsets of the compact set , so it has non-empty intersection. Since it follows that is non-trivial. Thus implies .
We show that implies via the contrapositive. Suppose is not expansive; by Van Dantzigâs theorem, there is a filtering family of compact open subgroups of that forms a base of identity neighborhoods. For each let . Then is non-trivial for each by Lemma 4.1.2. Thus is a filtering family of non-trivial compact normal subgroups of with trivial intersection, showing that is false. Thus implies , completing the cycle of implications. â
In particular, every t.d.l.c. group is approximated by its expansive quotients, in the sense of being an inverse limit of them: given an identity neighborhood in , there is a compact normal subgroup such that is expansive, where is obtained as the normal core in of some compact open subgroup contained in . Given this fact, we cannot expect to prove much about expansive t.d.l.c. groups per se. However, assuming that is a non-discrete, non-compactly generated t.d.l.c. group, it turns out to be a surprisingly powerful assumption to require a compactly generated open subgroup of to be expansive.
Definition 4.1.4**.**
A t.d.l.c. group is called regionally expansive if some compactly generated open subgroup is expansive. In other words, there is a compact open subgroup of with trivial normal core in .
Note that our definition here is consistent with the use of âregionallyâ in Remark 1.0.1: if some compact open subgroup of has trivial normal core in the compactly generated open subgroup of , then also has trivial normal core in every overgroup of in , so is a directed union of expansive compactly generated open subgroups. Note further that a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group is regionally expansive if and only if it is expansive, so within the class of expansive t.d.l.c. groups (which, as noted, approximates every t.d.l.c. group), âregionally expansiveâ is a generalization of âcompactly generated.â
The next lemma is one of the primary tools used throughout the present article. We stress that in this lemma the subgroup need not be closed, and we will indeed often use this lemma for non-closed .
Lemma 4.1.5**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group, be a compact open subgroup of , and be a subgroup such that . If contains a non-trivial normal subgroup of , then contains a non-trivial compact normal subgroup of .
Proof.
Let be a non-trivial normal subgroup of . The normalizer contains , and since , we see that acts transitively on the conjugacy class of in . Any conjugate of in is thus contained in . We deduce that is a subgroup of , and the lemma follows. â
Our first observation concerning regionally expansive groups is immediate. Recall that compactly generated, and more generally -compact t.d.l.c. groups, are second countable modulo a compact normal subgroup; see [Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, Theorem 8.7].
Lemma 4.1.6**.**
If is a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group, then is first countable. In particular, -compact regionally expansive t.d.l.c. groups are second countable.
Discrete groups are regionally expansive, so we can have . However, aside from this case, no regionally expansive group has dense quasi-center. A locally compact group is called quasi-discrete if its quasi-center is dense.
Lemma 4.1.7**.**
Let be a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group. If is quasi-discrete, then is discrete.
Proof.
Suppose that is quasi-discrete; that is, is dense in . Letting be a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with directed union equal to , we see that each is quasi-discrete, and in view of [Caprace & Monod,, 2011, Proposition 4.3], each is also a SIN group. On the other hand, for sufficiently large , the do not have arbitrarily small non-trivial compact normal subgroups. The only way to satisfy these conditions is that the are discrete, hence is discrete. â
4.2 Minimal normal subgroups and the socle
Definition 4.2.1**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group. Let be the (possibly empty) set of minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroups of . The socle of is the closed subgroup generated by all minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroups of . In other words, .
The following result implies that for a non-trivial regionally expansive group with trivial quasi-center, the set is necessarily non-empty.
Lemma 4.2.2**.**
Let be a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group with trivial quasi-center.
- (i)
Every filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups of has a non-trivial intersection. In particular, every non-trivial closed normal subgroup of contains a minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . 2. (ii)
Let be a regionally expansive open subgroup of . For every , there exists such that . 3. (iii)
If is infinite, then has a non-trivial characteristic abelian subgroup.
Proof.
Suppose is filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups of and fix a compactly generated expansive open subgroup of . The induced family is a filtering family of closed normal subgroups of . Additionally, none of the are discrete since . The subgroup has a compact open subgroup with trivial normal core and no non-trivial discrete normal subgroups, hence Theorem 2.1.2 ensures is non-trivial. We conclude that is non-trivial. The remainder of part (i) now follows by Zornâs lemma.
Let be a regionally expansive open subgroup of and let . Then is non-discrete since , so is a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . It follows by part (i) that there exists such that . The group is then a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . By construction , and by minimality, , proving (ii).
Suppose that is infinite. Set , take to be the set of finite subsets of , and for each , let . The subgroup contains for all , so it is a non-trivial normal subgroup of . The set is a filtering family. By part (i), it follows that is non-trivial. The construction of ensures that is characteristic and that for all . Since , we infer that is abelian, proving (iii). â
An extension of Lemma 4.2.2 will be established in Proposition 4.3.5 below.
4.3 Minimal normal subgroups and [A]-semisimplicity
Definition 4.3.1**.**
A t.d.l.c. group is [A]-semisimple if it admits no non-trivial locally normal abelian subgroups and it has a trivial quasi-center.
The [A]-semisimplicity condition implies in particular that is locally C-stable in the sense of Caprace *et al. *, [2017a]. As shown in [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Theorem A], every element of is [A]-semisimple. In this subsection, we discover a more general connection between [A]-semisimplicity and the normal subgroup structure in the class of regionally expansive groups.
We remark first that [A]-semisimplicity can be characterized in terms of quasi-discrete locally normal subgroups.
Proposition 4.3.2** ([Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Theorem 3.19 and Proposition 6.17]).**
For a t.d.l.c. group, the following are equivalent.
- (i)
* is [A]-semisimple;* 2. (ii)
* does not have any non-trivial quasi-discrete closed locally normal subgroups;* 3. (iii)
Every closed locally normal subgroup of has trivial quasi-center.
In an [A]-semisimple group, we have good control of quasi-centralizers of locally normal subgroups and some useful equivalent conditions for two locally normal subgroups to commute.
Lemma 4.3.3** (See [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Theorem 3.19]).**
Let be an [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. group and let be a closed locally normal subgroup of . Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.3.4**.**
Let be an [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. group and let and be locally normal subgroups of . Then . Moreover, the following assertions are equivalent.
- (i)
; 2. (ii)
; 3. (iii)
There is an open subgroup of that commutes with an open subgroup of .
In particular, for any compact open subgroup , we have if and only if .
Proof.
The equivalence of (i) and (ii) is given by [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Theorem 3.19]. Clearly (ii) implies (iii). Conversely, if (iii) holds then for some open subgroup of . Applying Lemma 4.3.3, we see that commutes with , and applying Lemma 4.3.3 again, commutes with , proving (ii).
It remains to show that . Set and let be an open subgroup of that normalizes and . The groups and thus normalize each other, so their commutator is contained in their intersection. In other words, is a locally normal subgroup of such that . Since is contained in both and a subgroup that centralizes , we deduce that is abelian, hence it is trivial. We conclude that and commute. The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) then ensures that and commute, so . On the other hand, , so equality holds.
Given a subgroup , we define and . We observe that and . Let be a compact open subgroup. Clearly, the equality implies that . Assume conversely that . By the equivalence of (ii) and (iii) above, we have for any locally normal subgroup . Therefore
[TABLE]
â
Our next proposition is an analogue of Proposition 2.1.1 for regionally expansive groups without quasi-discrete normal subgroups.
Proposition 4.3.5**.**
Let be a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group that has no non-trivial quasi-discrete closed normal subgroups.
- (i)
* is a finite set.* 2. (ii)
We have . 3. (iii)
Let be a regionally expansive open subgroup of . Then there is a surjective map from to given by sending to . 4. (iv)
Let be a regionally expansive subgroup of such that is open in and suppose that is non-abelian. Then . 5. (v)
Suppose that there is a compactly generated open subgroup of with no non-trivial abelian normal subgroups. Then the number is the least value of as ranges over expansive compactly generated open subgroups.
Proof.
Part (i) is immediate from Lemma 4.2.2 and the fact that has no non-trivial quasi-discrete normal subgroups; note that abelian groups are quasi-discrete.
Set and suppose that is non-trivial. By Lemma 4.2.2, there is some such that . Notice that . Our hypothesis ensures that is not quasi-discrete, so is not dense in . Hence by minimality. The group then centralizes . We conclude that is central in , which is impossible by the fact that is not quasi-discrete. This proves (ii).
Fix an open subgroup of that is regionally expansive. By Lemma 4.2.2, every arises as for some . To prove (iii), it therefore suffices to show that every is contained in some .
Let . Since , part (ii) implies that there is some such that . In particular, does not commute with . Since and are normal in , it follows that ; since , in fact we must have , so . This completes the proof of (iii).
Let be a regionally expansive subgroup of such that is open and let be such that is non-abelian. By part (ii), there is some such that is not contained in . We will show that , which in particular implies that .
We may assume for a contradiction that does not contain . Then the intersection is normal in and does not contain , so by minimality. In particular, we have . Let . Since is open and is not contained in , we see that is non-trivial. At the same time, normalizes , so . Hence, . The subgroup therefore does not normalize . Let be such that . Hence, , and and commute. Since is non-abelian, we can take such that . Thus,
[TABLE]
The group is normal in , so ; since , in fact we must have , contradicting our choice of . From this contradiction, we conclude that in fact . Since is a minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroup of , it follows that . This completes the proof of (iv).
For (v), we already know that is finite and that for all regionally expansive open subgroups . All that remains to show is that there is an expansive compactly generated open subgroup such that .
Let be a compactly generated open subgroup of with no non-trivial abelian normal subgroups. Say that and let be a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . The subgroup is non-discrete since , so is non-trivial and hence non-abelian. Any sufficiently large compactly generated open subgroup of thus has no non-trivial abelian normal subgroups. We may thus assume that is regionally expansive. By Lemma 4.2.2, it follows that is finite whenever .
Let be a compactly generated open subgroup of such that is minimal among the compactly generated open subgroups of containing and suppose toward a contradiction that . There thus exist such that . Let be a directed family of compactly generated open subgroups of with union such that for all . The minimality of ensures that and are distinct, hence they have trivial intersection for all . In particular, and commute, so centralizes for all . Since is the union of the , it follows that every -conjugate of centralizes , and thus centralizes . However, , so is abelian, which contradicts our earlier conclusion that has no non-trivial abelian normal subgroups. We conclude that , proving (v). â
In particular, Proposition 4.3.5 applies to all regionally expansive t.d.l.c. groups that are [A]-semisimple.
Corollary 4.3.6**.**
Let be a regionally expansive, [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. group.
- (i)
* is a finite set, and every non-trivial closed normal subgroup of contains some .* 2. (ii)
Let be a regionally expansive open subgroup of . Then there is a surjective map from to given by sending to . 3. (iii)
The number is the least value of as ranges over expansive compactly generated open subgroups of .
Corollary 4.3.7**.**
Let be a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group that is [A]-semisimple. Then is monolithic if and only if some compactly generated open subgroup of is monolithic.
We next observe that regionally expansive topologically characteristically simple groups are [A]-semisimple. Our proof requires a small adaptation of a lemma from Wesolek, [2015]. The proof is the same as in Wesolek, [2015], so we leave the details to the reader.
Lemma 4.3.8** (See [Wesolek,, 2015, Lemma 9.11]).**
Suppose that is a t.d.l.c. group with a compact open subgroup . Suppose further that is a finite set of infinite compact locally normal subgroups of such that is stable under conjugation by . Defining
[TABLE]
the following holds:
- (i)
; 2. (ii)
* is an infinite closed normal subgroup of ; and* 3. (iii)
.
Theorem 4.3.9**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group that is topologically characteristically simple, regionally expansive, and non-discrete. Then is [A]-semisimple.
Proof.
By Lemma 4.1.7, the quasi-center of is not dense. Since is topologically characteristically simple, we have .
Let be the collection of non-trivial abelian compact locally normal subgroups. Suppose for a contradiction that is non-empty, so is non-trivial. Since the set is invariant under automorphisms of , it follows that is dense in .
For the convenience of this proof, we will say an admissible triple consists of the following: is a non-empty finite subset of , is a finite subset of containing , and is a compact open subgroup of . Fix an admissible triple and define the following:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The set is invariant under conjugation by elements of . It is also a finite set, as for some finite subset and each has only finitely many -conjugates. Lemma 4.3.8 then ensures that is commensurated by . It follows by Lemma 2.4.1 that is normalized by .
For each , the group is an abelian normal subgroup of . As is finite, Fittingâs theorem ensures that is nilpotent. In particular, is non-trivial. In view of Lemma 4.3.8, is normal in , so is normal in . Since has trivial quasi-center, the same is true of ; the action of on by conjugation then has an infinite orbit, and in particular is infinite. The group is thus an infinite compact subgroup of , so is not discrete.
Let us now consider how depends on the choices of , and . The set
[TABLE]
is a directed family. Indeed, given finite subsets of and compact open subgroups of , the set is compact, and hence given any compact open subgroup of , there is some finite such that . For finite subsets of , we see that
[TABLE]
where .
Now suppose that for admissible triples and . The group
[TABLE]
is a subgroup of that contains a finite index open subgroup of every . The group is an internal (not necessarily direct) product of the normal subgroups where . Since contains a finite index open subgroup of for each , it follows that is of finite index in . Thus, contains a finite index subgroup of , and . Since is a directed family, we conclude that
[TABLE]
is a filtering family.
Set . By construction, is a closed characteristic subgroup of , so it is either trivial or equal to ; we will derive a contradiction in both cases. Fix an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of .
Suppose . Let be an admissible triple. Since is compactly generated and generates a dense subgroup of , there is a finite subset of containing such that . As noted above, is normalized by . A fortiori, is normalized by , and we have . Given the freedom of choice of , we conclude that every element of contains an element of , where consists of the elements of normalized by . The family has a trivial intersection, since we assume , and we obtain a trivial intersection of closed normal subgroups of as follows: . Applying Proposition 2.1.1, is discrete for some , and since is open, it follows that is discrete. However, we have already shown that is non-discrete for every admissible triple , which is a contradiction.
Let us now suppose that . Fix an admissible triple and let ; recall that is non-discrete. Since is expansive, we can find a compact open subgroup of which has a trivial normal core in . The group has dense quasi-centralizer in , ensuring that for some finite subset of . We may then find a finite index such that centralizes , and since is normalized by both and , it is normal in . We have thus obtained a non-trivial normal subgroup of contained in , contradicting our assumption that has trivial normal core in .
From the contradictions in the previous two paragraphs, we conclude that no admissible triples exist, so in fact is empty; that is, has no non-trivial locally normal abelian subgroups. Since also , we conclude that is [A]-semisimple. â
4.4 Permanence properties
In general, regional expansiveness does not pass from a dense locally compact subgroup to the ambient group; consider discrete dense locally compact subgroups. However, regional expansiveness can be transmitted from a dense locally compact subgroup up to the ambient group under suitable assumptions.
A normal compression from a topological group to a topological group is a dense embedding such that the image is normal.
Lemma 4.4.1**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups and be a normal compression. If is regionally expansive with trivial quasi-center, then is regionally expansive with trivial quasi-center.
Proof.
Let be the usual projection. Since has trivial quasi-center, is injective. It follows that is trivial. Set . The subgroup is normal in and intersects trivially. As is dense and normal, we infer that . Hence, has trivial quasi-center.
Fix a compactly generated expansive open subgroup of . Let be a compactly generated open subgroup of that contains , where is again the projection, and note that is quasi-central in , hence trivial. We argue that is expansive.
Let be a filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups of and fix . The subgroup is not central in , since has trivial center, and in particular, does not centralize , as is dense in . Seeing as and are both normal in , we deduce that they must have a non-trivial intersection. The preimage is then non-trivial, and it is non-discrete, since has a trivial quasi-center. The group is then also non-trivial. Thus, is a filtering family of non-trivial closed normal subgroups of . Lemma 4.2.2(i) ensures that is non-trivial, and hence is non-trivial. By Lemma 4.1.3, we have proved that is expansive; hence, is regionally expansive. â
With some adjustments, we can consider a useful, more general situation where is a continuous, injective homomorphism such that is normal in .
Lemma 4.4.2**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group and be a closed locally normal subgroup of . If is regionally expansive and , then is regionally expansive.
Proof.
Note that for any subgroup of . In particular, since , we have . Every discrete locally normal subgroup of is thus contained in .
Fix a compactly generated open such that is expansive and say that is a compact open subgroup of for which has trivial normal core in . Since is open, we may take . The group is then a compactly generated open subgroup of . Letting be the normal core of in , , and thus, is discrete; since is compact, is indeed finite. Now and normalize each other, so ; in particular, is finite. There are thus finite index open subgroups of and of such that , so . Since is finite and has finite index in , it follows that is finite. There is then an open subgroup of such that , and we see that has trivial normal core in . Thus is expansive, showing that is regionally expansive. â
Proposition 4.4.3**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups and be a continuous, injective homomorphism. Assume that is regionally expansive with trivial quasi-center and that is normal in . Then the subgroup equals and is closed in , and is regionally expansive with trivial quasi-center. In fact, has trivial quasi-centralizer in .
Proof.
Set . Lemma 4.4.1 ensures that has a trivial quasi-center. The quasi-centralizer of in then equals the centralizer of in by Lemma 2.3.2. Therefore, , and in particular,
[TABLE]
We conclude that centralizes . In fact, , establishing the first claim. Since is a centralizer, it is a closed subgroup of .
Seeing that , we have a continuous, injective homomorphism where . We argue that has trivial quasi-centralizer in . Let be such that centralizes an open subgroup of . The element then centralizes , because . Noting that is dense in , the element centralizes . We infer that centralizes an open subgroup of , and hence . Therefore, is the trivial element of .
The map is a normal compression from to . The subgroup has a trivial quasi-center in , so a fortiori, . We apply Lemma 4.4.1 to deduce that is regionally expansive. On the other hand, is normal, and is trivially contained in . Lemma 4.4.2 thus ensures that that is regionally expansive. â
Regional expansiveness is also inherited by cocompactly embedded subgroups.
Proposition 4.4.4**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups and be a continuous, injective homomorphism such that is cocompact in . If regionally expansive, then is regionally expansive.
Proof.
Let be an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of and say that is a compact open subgroup with trivial normal core in . By Lemma 2.1.8, there exist such that is cocompact in . Setting where is a compact open subgroup of , the group is a compactly generated open subgroup of such that is cocompact in . Let us replace with and with to reduce to the case when both and are compactly generated and has trivial normal core in . In this case, it suffices to show that has an open subgroup that contains no non-trivial normal subgroup of .
Since is cocompact in , we can write as where is compact. The subgroup has trivial normal core in , so
[TABLE]
We conclude that does not contain any non-trivial normal subgroup of , hence does not contain any non-trivial normal subgroup of . At the same time, is open in , since is contained in a finite union of left cosets of , so is open in . The group therefore has an open subgroup with trivial normal core. â
4.5 An application
We pause to generalize a prior result on the structure of topologically characteristically simple groups ([Caprace & Monod,, 2011, Corollary D]) from the compactly generated case to the regionally expansive case.
Theorem 4.5.1**.**
Suppose that is a non-discrete topologically characteristically simple t.d.l.c. group. Then is regionally expansive if and only if , where is finite and each is isomorphic to some t.d.l.c. group that is non-discrete, regionally expansive, and topologically simple.
Proof.
Suppose that is regionally expansive. The group is [A]-semisimple by Theorem 4.3.9, and hence is finite by Corollary 4.3.6. Letting , every non-trivial closed normal subgroup of contains some by Lemma 4.2.2. Since is topologically characteristically simple, we see that and that permutes transitively, so the elements of are isomorphic. By [Reid & Wesolek,, 2015, Proposition 5.13], each is topologically simple. Each is also non-discrete since the quasi-center of is trivial.
Let us suppose for contradiction that some, equivalently all, fail to be regionally expansive. Fix a compactly generated and a compact open subgroup of such that has trivial normal core in . The intersection is dense in , so we may find a finite set such that , by Lemma 2.1.6. For each with , let be a compact neighborhood of in and let ; note that is a compactly generated open subgroup of such that and . The group is a supergroup of , and so has trivial normal core in . On the other hand, each fails to be regionally expansive, so there is a closed non-trivial such that . The subgroup is normalized by and contained in . Lemma 4.1.5 then supplies a non-trivial normal subgroup of contained in . This contradicts the fact that has trivial normal core in , and we deduce that each is regionally expansive.
Conversely, suppose that where each of the subgroups is a non-discrete, regionally expansive, topologically simple closed normal subgroup of . Each has trivial quasi-center by Theorem 4.3.9 and thus is not central in . In particular, , and since is characteristically simple, it must be the case that . For , let be an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of and let be a compact open subgroup of . Note that has compact orbits on for each , so by enlarging the subgroups as necessary, we may assume that for all . By choosing sufficiently small, we may also ensure that contains no non-trivial closed normal subgroup of .
Now let ; the group is a compactly generated open subgroup of . Let be a closed normal subgroup of such that . The choice of ensures that for all . Both and are normal in , so they must commute. Thus, for all . Since , we see that actually centralizes . The subgroup thereby centralizes for all , so . We conclude that contains no non-trivial compact normal subgroup of , and hence, is regionally expansive. â
Remark 4.5.2**.**
In [Caprace & Monod,, 2011, Corollary D] it is stated that a compactly generated topologically characteristically simple locally compact group must be compact, discrete, or generated topologically by a finite set of isomorphic topologically simple closed normal subgroups. Let us explain how this follows easily from Theorem 4.5.1 in the totally disconnected case. Suppose that is a compactly generated and topologically characteristically simple t.d.l.c. group. If discrete, there is nothing to prove. If is non-discrete and not regionally expansive, then has a non-trivial compact normal subgroup and is thus generated by compact normal subgroups, since it is characteristically simple. Since is compactly generated, there is then some compact open subgroup of and a finite set of compact normal subgroups such that ; from here it is easy to see that must be compact. If is non-discrete and regionally expansive, then Theorem 4.5.1 applies.
5 Robustly monolithic groups
5.1 Definition and basic properties
Definition 5.1.1**.**
A t.d.l.c. group is called robustly monolithic if is monolithic and the monolith is non-discrete, regionally expansive, and topologically simple. We denote by the class of robustly monolithic groups.
Proposition 5.1.2**.**
Every element of is regionally expansive and -semisimple.
Proof.
Take . The monolith of is regionally expansive, and by Theorem 4.3.9, it has a trivial quasi-center. Proposition 4.4.3 now ensures that is closed. The monolith is not quasi-discrete, so is in fact trivial. A second application of Proposition 4.4.3 implies that is regionally expansive.
To see that is -semisimple, we first note that , so has a trivial quasi-center. Let be a closed locally normal abelian subgroup of ; it remains to show that is trivial. The intersection is a closed locally normal abelian subgroup of . By Theorem 4.3.9, is -semisimple, so . Let be an open subgroup of . The groups and normalize each other and have trivial intersection, so ; in particular, centralizes an open subgroup of . Since , we have , so is discrete. Since every discrete locally normal subgroup of a t.d.l.c. group lies in the quasi-center, we have . This completes the proof that is -semisimple. â
All results about regionally expansive groups thus apply to . It is also immediate that ; Section 9 gives examples showing this inclusion is strict.
We make a trivial observation about monolithic groups that will be used frequently. The monolith of a group in is infinite and non-abelian, since the monolith is non-discrete and regionally expansive, so the following lemma applies to groups in .
Lemma 5.1.3**.**
Let be a monolithic topological group such that the monolith is infinite and non-abelian. Then given a commuting pair of closed normal subgroups and of , at least one of and is trivial. In particular, .
Proof.
Let and be closed normal subgroups of such that . The intersection is central in , so is abelian. In particular, . Since is the monolith of , it follows that . Therefore, and do not both contain . If , then , and if then . We see that by considering the case , . â
Let us also note that the monoliths of groups in again lie in .
Lemma 5.1.4**.**
Let and be a non-trivial closed subgroup of such that . Then and . In particular, is a topologically simple group in .
Proof.
As in the proof of Proposition 5.1.2, the quasi-centralizer of in is trivial. Since and normalize each other and do not commute, they must have non-trivial intersection, and as is topologically simple, . By the same argument, for any non-trivial closed normal subgroup of , it is the case that . Therefore, is monolithic with . Since is itself a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of , we have . Thus, . â
Lemma 5.1.4 implies that every closed containing is an element of . From the proof of Lemma 5.1.4, we see additionally that .
5.2 Passing to regional subgroups
We now argue that the property of being robustly monolithic is in fact a regional property. This turns out to be an important feature.
Lemma 5.2.1**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group and be a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with . Suppose that is monolithic for all and that . Then is monolithic, and the monolith of is given by where is the monolith of , and is normal in .
Proof.
Set . Since , we also have for each , so each is not discrete. Let be such that . The group is non-discrete, so is a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of and hence contains . By the same argument, any non-trivial closed normal subgroup of must contain for every . Therefore, is monolithic, and the monolith of contains .
For , the family is a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with union . Taking and a compact generating set for , there is some such that contains and hence contains . We infer that , so . As is arbitrary, , and hence by symmetry. Therefore, is normal in . The group is then a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of , and it is the unique minimal such, by the previous paragraph. We conclude that is monolithic with monolith . â
Theorem 5.2.2**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group and let be a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with . The following are equivalent.
- (i)
. 2. (ii)
There is such that for all .
Proof.
(i) (ii). By passing to for some , we may assume that there is a unique minimal and that every is expansive, since is regionally expansive by Proposition 5.1.2. In view of Proposition 5.1.2, we see that , and also every open subgroup of , is [A]-semisimple. We are now in a position to apply Corollary 4.3.7, and thus we may choose to be monolithic. Corollary 4.3.6 then ensures that is monolithic for all .
Letting be the monolith of , by Lemma 5.2.1 the union is a dense normal subgroup of , the monolith of . The monolith is regionally expansive since , so there is a compactly generated open subgroup and a compact open subgroup such that has trivial normal core in . As the union of the groups is dense in , there is such that . The group is thus a compactly generated open subgroup of by Proposition 2.1.7. In view of Lemma 4.1.5, the normal core of in must be trivial. Hence, is regionally expansive. The same argument applies to any for , so passing to the system , we may assume every is regionally expansive.
Via Theorem 4.5.1, each is generated by a finite set of minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroups, and each is non-discrete, regionally expansive, and topologically simple. Since is finite, is of finite index in . A fortiori, each has open normalizer in for . Applying Proposition 4.3.5, each is such that for . On the other hand, take for some . The intersection is non-trivial, since is non-discrete, so . There is thus some such that . The group has finite index in , so is contained in . That is to say, normalizes . It follows that , and we infer that . For , we thus obtain a surjective map from to given by .
It remains to show that is topologically simple for all sufficiently large ; by Theorem 4.5.1, is topologically simple if and only if . Let be such that is minimized and suppose toward a contradiction that and are distinct elements of . For , the minimality of ensures that the groups and are distinct, hence they have trivial intersection and so commute. The group thereby centralizes every -conjugate of . Since is dense in , in fact centralizes every -conjugate of , so centralizes a non-trivial normal subgroup of . Since is topologically simple, we in fact have . By Lemma 5.1.3, , so , which contradicts the hypothesis that . We conclude that , and it follows that for all . Therefore, is topologically simple for all , and for all .
(ii) (i). Since has a regionally expansive open subgroup, it is itself regionally expansive. For , there is such that . Since is open, we have . Robustly monolithic groups have trivial quasi-center by Proposition 5.1.2, so we infer that . Lemma 4.2.2 now implies that the set of minimal closed normal subgroups of is non-empty. Moreover, for each , there is with . Since is robustly monolithic, the set has only one element, and it follows that also has a single element. The group is thus monolithic by Lemma 4.2.2. Setting for each , Lemma 5.2.1 ensures that is a dense subgroup of and is normal in .
Take to be a closed normal subgroup of . If , then for some , hence since is topologically simple. Therefore, for all . We conclude that , and hence , since is dense in . On the other hand, if , then , and , since is dense. The group is topologically characteristically simple and non-abelian, since each is non-abelian. We thus have , so . This shows that is topologically simple.
It remains to show that is regionally expansive. Let be a compact open subgroup. Since is [A]-semisimple by Proposition 5.1.2, . Hence, via Lemma 2.3.2. The latter centralizer is trivial, since is [A]-semisimple, hence . Lemma 4.4.2 ensures that is regionally expansive. There must then exist a compactly generated open subgroup containing such that the normal core of some open subgroup in is trivial. We see that , so is a cocompact closed subgroup of and is thus compactly generated, by Proposition 2.1.7. As , we infer that . In particular, is a cocompact subgroup of , hence is compactly generated. Let . We will conclude the proof by showing that ; this will show that is regionally expansive: is a compactly generated open subgroup of with a compact open subgroup that has trivial normal core .
Since normalizes and , we see that acts transitively on the conjugacy class of in . Since , the group also acts transitively on the conjugacy class of in . Thus , and since , as required. â
5.3 Dense embeddings with normal image
Similar to Proposition 4.4.3, we obtain a general circumstance in which groups in extend to a larger group in . In order to appeal to some results from Reid & Wesolek, [2015], we must make the additional assumption that we are starting from a second countable group in . By Lemma 4.1.6, every member of is first countable. Hence, an element of is second countable if and only if it is -compact, via classical point-set topology.
Proposition 5.3.1**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups and be a continuous, injective homomorphism. Assume that , is second countable, and is normal in . The subgroup equals and is closed in , and is in .
Proof.
The hypotheses are a special case of Proposition 4.4.3. Thus, and is closed in and is regionally expansive with trivial quasi-center. We have a continuous homomorphism by .
Set ; by Proposition 4.4.3, the quasi-centralizer of in is trivial. Consider a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . Since has trivial center and is dense in , the subgroup cannot centralize , and thus . The preimage contains the monolith of , hence . The intersection of all non-trivial closed normal subgroups of contains , and we infer that is monolithic with monolith . As is infinite and topologically simple, cannot be injectively mapped into a profinite group, so is also non-compact.
As is -compact, is -compact. The group is indeed second countable, because it does not have arbitrarily small non-trivial compact normal subgroups. Appealing to [Reid & Wesolek,, 2015, Corollary 3.7], the image is normal in . It follows that and that is a normal compression of . The monolith is non-abelian and topologically characteristically simple, so it has trivial center. Applying [Reid & Wesolek,, 2015, Theorem 1.4], we infer that is topologically simple, and Lemma 4.4.1 ensures that is regionally expansive. We thus deduce that .
It remains to show that . The subgroup is topologically characteristic in and hence normal in . Therefore, . As is the monolith of and is in , it follows that . We deduce that centralizes , hence . For any closed non-trivial , it now follows that must be non-trivial. The subgroup is thus the monolith of , so as required. â
We highlight the following special case, where t.d.l.c.s.c. stands for totally disconnected locally compact second countable and l.c.s.c. is defined likewise.
Corollary 5.3.2**.**
Suppose that is a robustly monolithic t.d.l.c.s.c. group with monolith . If is a l.c.s.c. group acting continuously and faithfully on by topological group automorphisms, then is robustly monolithic.
Proof.
Proposition 2.2.2 ensures that is a t.d.l.c.s.c. group, and is normal in . Proposition 5.3.1 now implies that . â
5.4 Passing to a dense locally compact subgroup
A more striking closure property is that is closed under taking non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups, without any assumptions on normalizers.
Theorem 5.4.1**.**
Suppose that and that is a non-discrete t.d.l.c. group. If admits a dense embedding into , then . In particular, has a trivial quasi-center.
Proof.
Let be a continuous, dense embedding. In view of Proposition 5.1.2, is regionally expansive, and applying Proposition 4.4.4, the group is also regionally expansive. Write . Note that by Lemma 5.1.3.
Let and suppose toward a contradiction that is non-trivial. Then is a non-trivial normal subgroup of , so . It follows by Lemma 5.1.4 that , and hence is regionally expansive by Proposition 5.1.2. Fix an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of and let be a compact open subgroup with trivial normal core.
Since has dense image in , there is a finite subset of such that . Then there is an open subgroup of centralized by ; in particular, is normal in , and furthermore, . Lemma 4.1.5 then implies that has a non-trivial compact normal subgroup contained in , which contradicts our choice of and . From this contradiction, we see that ; since is injective, it follows that .
Lemma 4.2.2 now ensures the presence of minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroups of . Suppose that and are distinct minimal non-trivial closed normal subgroups. The subgroups and commute and are normal in , so and commute and are normal in . By Lemma 5.1.3, at least one of and is trivial, so (since is injective) at least one of and is trivial, a contradiction. The group is thus monolithic.
Let be the monolith of . Since is the monolith of , , and on the other hand, , since is the monolith of . We deduce that . Applying Proposition 4.4.4, is regionally expansive, and as above, has a trivial quasi-center. Since is topologically simple, in particular monolithic, the same argument as in the previous paragraph shows that is monolithic. Since must be topologically characteristically simple, we conclude that is topologically simple. Thus, . â
5.5 Dense subgroups of compactly generated simple groups
The following result shows several of the previous results can be upgraded in the case of dense locally compact subgroups of . Recall that a topological group is regionally compact if it is expressible as a directed union of compact open subgroups. Equivalently, is regionally compact if every compactly generated closed subgroup of is compact. Recall additionally that the discrete residual of , denoted by , is the intersection of all open normal subgroups.
Proposition 5.5.1**.**
Let and be a non-discrete t.d.l.c. group with a dense embedding . Let be a compact open subgroup and be a directed system of compactly generated open subgroups of with . There is such that the following assertions hold for all .
- (i)
. 2. (ii)
. 3. (iii)
. 4. (iv)
If is regionally compact, then and is compact. In particular, is regionally -by-compact.
Proof.
(i). Theorem 5.4.1 ensures that . Via Theorem 5.2.2, there is such that each is monolithic with a topologically simple and regionally expansive monolith for all . Replacing by , we may assume that every is an element of .
(ii). The set of monoliths is directed, and is a normal subgroup of , by Lemma 5.2.1. The image has a dense normalizer in , so is dense in . Fixing a compact open subgroup of , it follows from Lemma 2.1.6 that there is some such that , since is compactly generated. We conclude that for all . Replacing by , we may assume every has this property.
(iii). Set . Since is residually finite and is continuous and injective, it follows that is residually discrete. We deduce from Proposition 2.1.4 that every compactly generated open subgroup of is a SIN-group. Since is compactly generated and , there is a compactly generated open subgroup of such that . The quotient is then SIN by Lemma 2.1.5. Assertion (iii) is now clear.
(iv). If is regionally compact, then the quotient is compactly generated and regionally compact, hence it is compact. In particular, is compactly generated by Proposition 2.1.7 and thus belongs to the class . â
Let us provide a general criterion ensuring that the hypothesis of Proposition 5.5.1(iv) is fulfilled.
Lemma 5.5.2**.**
Let and be t.d.l.c. groups with compact open subgroups and , respectively, and be a dense embedding with . Suppose that has a basis of identity neighborhoods consisting of open normal subgroups of such that is a locally finite group for all . Then is regionally compact.
Proof.
By Proposition 2.1.4, every compactly generated open subgroup of is a SIN group. Let be any finite set. The group is a compactly generated open subgroup of , so there is a compact open subgroup that is normal in . The map restricts to a homeomorphism from to and the subgroups form a basis of identity neighborhoods in . For large enough, we have . Thus, .
By hypothesis, is a locally finite group, and thus is also locally finite. The finitely generated subgroup is therefore finite. Since is injective, it follows that has finite index in , so is compact. We conclude that every compactly generated open subgroup of is compact. That is to say, is regionally compact. â
5.6 Solvable subgroups of robustly monolithic groups
Using localizations, we restrict the solvable subgroups of groups in .
Corollary 5.6.1**.**
Suppose that . If is an infinite compact subgroup such that is dense, then the only virtually solvable normal subgroup of is the trivial group.
Proof.
Form the localization of at . The group is a dense locally compact subgroup of , so by Theorem 5.4.1. Proposition 5.1.2 ensures is [A]-semisimple, so admits no non-trivial locally normal abelian subgroups. The only virtually solvable normal subgroup of is thus the trivial group. â
For a t.d.l.c. group and a compact open subgroup, Theorem 2.4.5 shows that the group is dense in for any pro--Sylow subgroup of . The next corollary is then immediate from Corollary 5.6.1.
Corollary 5.6.2**.**
Suppose that , is a compact open subgroup of , and is a pro--Sylow subgroup of . If is infinite, then the only virtually solvable normal subgroup of is the trivial group. In particular, is not solvable.
6 Regionally elementary groups
6.1 Definition and basic properties
We recall the class of elementary t.d.l.c.s.c. groups as defined in Wesolek, [2015].
Definition 6.1.1**.**
The collection of elementary groups is the smallest class of t.d.l.c.s.c. groups such that
contains the second countable profinite groups and countable discrete groups. 2. 2.
is closed under group extensions within the class of t.d.l.c.s.c. groups. 3. 3.
is closed under taking closed subgroups. 4. 4.
is closed under taking Hausdorff quotients. 5. 5.
is closed under countable directed unions of open subgroups.
The definition of elementary groups easily extends to groups that are not -compact.
Definition 6.1.2**.**
A t.d.l.c. group is called regionally elementary if every compactly generated open subgroup is elementary. It is called regionally SIN if every compactly generated open subgroup is a SIN group.
Regionally elementary groups are necessarily first countable. Since the class is closed under closed subgroups and countable directed unions, one sees that a second countable t.d.l.c. group is elementary if and only if it is regionally elementary.
The class of regionally elementary groups enjoys several closure properties. These all follow from the definition of the class of elementary groups except for claim (ii). This claim follows from [Wesolek,, 2015, Theorem 3.8], which shows claim (ii) holds for the class of elementary groups.
Proposition 6.1.3**.**
The class of regionally elementary groups enjoys the following closure properties within the class of t.d.l.c. groups:
- (i)
It is closed under forming group extensions. 2. (ii)
It is closed under taking preimages via continuous, injective maps. In particular, it is closed under taking closed subgroups. 3. (iii)
It is closed under taking Hausdorff quotients. 4. (iv)
It is closed under taking directed unions of open subgroups.
6.2 Decomposition rank
The class of elementary groups admits an ordinal valued rank called the decomposition rank (see [Wesolek,, 2015, Section 4]). It is the unique ordinal valued function with the following properties:
- (a)
; 2. (b)
If is non-trivial and is an -increasing exhaustion of by compactly generated open subgroups, then
[TABLE]
The lowest possible rank of a non-trivial group is two. Given a non-trivial t.d.l.c.s.c. group , we have if and only if is a directed union of compactly generated open SIN-groups; see [Reid & Wesolek,, 2017, Lemma 3.15].
The decomposition rank on elementary groups extends to regionally elementary groups: For a non-trivial regionally elementary group, we define the decomposition rank to be
[TABLE]
If is trivial, we put . For an elementary group , it is clear that that . We will thus abuse notation and simply write for the decomposition rank of a regionally elementary group. We note also that a non-trivial group is regionally SIN if and only if .
The decomposition rank is well-behaved for regionally elementary groups. These results follow easily from the corresponding facts for elementary groups.
Proposition 6.2.1**.**
The decomposition rank for regionally elementary groups enjoys the following properties:
- (i)
If is a short exact sequence of regionally elementary groups, then . (cf. [Reid & Wesolek,, 2017, Lemma 3.8]) 2. (ii)
*Suppose that is a t.d.l.c. group and is regionally elementary. If there is a continuous embedding of into , then is regionally elementary with . *(cf. [Wesolek,, 2015, Corollary 4.10])
The recursion that produces the decomposition rank gives a chain condition that characterizes regionally elementary groups.
Proposition 6.2.2**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group. Then is regionally elementary if and only if is first countable and for every descending chain of compactly generated closed subgroups
[TABLE]
such that and for all , there exists with .
Proof.
Suppose that is regionally elementary. Then has an open subgroup that is second countable, so is first countable. Let now be an infinite descending chain of compactly generated closed subgroups such that for all . In particular, by Proposition 6.2.1. Whenever is non-trivial, we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore for all such that is non-trivial. Since takes ordinal values, we cannot have an infinite descending chain , so the sequence eventually stabilizes at . We conclude that satisfies the chain condition.
Conversely, suppose that is first countable but not regionally elementary. There is thus some compactly generated closed subgroup that is not regionally elementary. The quotient is regionally elementary; indeed it is compact-by-discrete by Proposition 2.1.4. It follows by Proposition 6.1.3 that is not regionally elementary. There thus exists a compactly generated open that is non-elementary. Continuing in this fashion produces an infinite chain such that and is non-elementary for all . We conclude that does not satisfy the chain condition. â
6.3 Robustly monolithic groups are not regionally elementary
Using the permanence properties, we here see that contains no regionally elementary groups. In fact, we find that has a recursive property of its own that is incompatible with the class of regionally elementary groups.
Proposition 6.3.1**.**
Let . Then at least one of the following holds:
- (i)
There is a closed such that . 2. (ii)
There is an infinite descending chain
[TABLE]
of topologically simple closed subgroups of such that for all , , is not compactly generated, and for some compactly generated open subgroup of .
Proof.
Let . Theorem 5.2.2 supplies a compactly generated open such that . Letting be the monolith of , Lemma 5.1.4 ensures that . There is then a compactly generated open such that , and so on.
If we can choose for some , then must be compactly generated and equal to its own monolith, so and (i) holds. If instead we are forced to choose for all , then we obtain a chain as in (ii) by taking . â
Corollary 6.3.2**.**
The class contains no regionally elementary groups.
Proof.
Let be the chain produced in the proof of Proposition 6.3.1. Each is compactly generated, and for all . In view of Proposition 6.2.2, is not regionally elementary; note that it can be the case that for all sufficiently large , but Proposition 6.2.2 nonetheless applies. â
Corollary 6.3.3**.**
Let and be a regionally elementary t.d.l.c. group admitting a dense embedding into . Then is discrete.
Corollary 6.3.4**.**
If is a non-discrete topologically simple regionally elementary group, then is not regionally expansive.
Examples satisfying the hypotheses of the previous corollary may be found in [Willis,, 2007, Proposition 3.2]. We remark that all known examples have decomposition rank two.
We also have some control over the rank of with respect to continuous dense embeddings.
Theorem 6.3.5**.**
Let and be a non-discrete t.d.l.c. group with a dense embedding . If is regionally elementary of finite rank, then so is .
Proof.
We have by Theorem 5.4.1. Set and . Setting , we see that , and therefore is regionally elementary of finite rank. For a compact open subgroup, we have . Setting , we deduce that . The subgroup is residually discrete and so is a regionally SIN group. It follows the quotient is then regionally elementary with rank two. Since regionally elementary groups are closed under group extension and the decomposition rank is subadditive, we conclude that is regionally elementary with finite rank. â
7 The centralizer lattice
7.1 Preliminaries
Following Caprace *et al. *, [2017a], let us define the structure lattice . For a t.d.l.c. group , let be the set of closed locally normal subgroups of modulo the equivalence relation where if is open in both and . Define a partial ordering on by if there are representatives and such that .
As explained in Caprace *et al. *, [2017a], associated to any [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. group there is a canonical Boolean algebra called the centralizer lattice. This lattice can be defined either locally or globally.
- Locally: Define the centralizer map by . The centralizer lattice is defined to be the image of under with the partial order inherited from .
- Globally: We define as the set
[TABLE]
ordered by inclusion.
These two versions of the centralizer lattice are canonically isomorphic. Indeed, given a locally normal subgroup , the centralizer depends only on by Lemma 4.3.3. Moreover, the global version maps onto the local version via by Lemma 4.3.4. We shall freely switch between the local and global perspective of the centralizer lattice. It is easy to verify that admits an action on , and in particular, acts on . We also remark that the meet operation for the centralizer lattice is especially straightforward: in , it is the operation induced by intersecting representatives, and in it is simply intersection.
Let us note a general situation in which the structure and centralizer lattices can be pulled back along a homomorphism.
Lemma 7.1.1**.**
Let and be [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. groups, be a continuous, injective homomorphism, and be a compact open subgroup. Then the map defined by
[TABLE]
is well-defined, order-preserving, meet-preserving, and -equivariant where acts on via . Let us assume furthermore that for every compact locally normal subgroup of . Then:
- (i)
* for all , and* 2. (ii)
if in addition for all , then induces an injective homomorphism of Boolean algebras.
Proof.
That is well-defined, order-preserving, and -equivariant is straightforward. For any locally normal subgroups and of , we have
[TABLE]
It follows that preserves meets.
For (i), take a compact open subgroup containing and fix . By definition, . Moreover,
[TABLE]
Invoking the extra hypothesis that , we have
[TABLE]
since is injective. On the other hand,
[TABLE]
The group is [A]-semisimple and is locally normal in , so by Lemma 4.3.4, we have . We conclude that for all .
For (ii), we assume in addition that for all . Take and in and suppose that . Set . Since , we have . We also see that
[TABLE]
With these observations in hand, we deduce that
[TABLE]
Thus, . Reversing the roles of and , it is also the case that . It now follows that , and so the map via is injective. Given part (i) and the fact that preserves meets, we see that it restricts to a Boolean algebra homomorphism from to , verifying (ii). â
Lemma 7.1.1 implies in particular that one can restrict the structure and centralizer lattices to suitable locally normal subgroups.
Proposition 7.1.2**.**
Let be an -semisimple t.d.l.c. group, let be a closed locally normal subgroup of , and let be a compact open subgroup of . Suppose that and that is -semisimple. Then the map defined by
[TABLE]
enjoys the following properties.
- (i)
It is order-preserving, meet-preserving, -equivariant, and every non-zero element has a non-zero image; 2. (ii)
; and 3. (iii)
the restriction to yields an injective homomorphism of Boolean algebras.
Proof.
Let be the group equipped with the -localized topology. The structure lattice can be identified with , since is open in . In view of this identification, is -equivariant. Suppose that is a non-trivial closed locally normal subgroup of and let . Lemma 4.3.4 ensures that . Moreover is non-trivial, since . In fact, must be non-discrete, so . Every non-zero element of thus has a non-zero image. Finally, the inclusion map is injective and continuous, and the structure and centralizer lattices of can be identified with those of . Thus all the hypotheses of Lemma 7.1.1 are satisfied, and the remaining parts of the proposition follow. â
Proposition 7.1.2 applies in particular when and is the monolith of .
7.2 The structure of the Stone space
Associated to any Boolean algebra is a topological space , called the Stone space of . The points of are the ultrafilters of , and the basic open sets of the topology are the sets of the form . The complement of as a subset of is exactly the open set where , so is clopen for all . The Stone space is a compact zero-dimensional space, and its set of clopen subsets is exactly . The collection of clopen sets ordered by inclusion is canonically isomorphic with as a Boolean algebra. We will abuse notation and identify with , so given and , the expressions ââ and ââ should be understood as synonymous. In particular, we will regard elements of as subsets of ; this allows us to define infinite intersections and unions of elements of . If a group acts on , we say that fixes if for all . Equivalently, fixes setwise the clopen set in the Stone space. If faithfully, then the action of on is micro-supported, via [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Theorem II]. That is to say, for every non-empty, proper clopen , is non-trivial.
Given a group and subgroups and of , define and . If , we observe that and . In an [A]-semisimple t.d.l.c. group, the elements of the global centralizer lattice can be characterized as the locally normal subgroups of that satisfy . The set of elements of that are fixed under the action of is denoted by .
Proposition 7.2.1**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group that is [A]-semisimple and monolithic. Then , and the action of on is topologically transitive.
Proof.
Let and be non-empty open subspaces of ; we must show that there is such that has non-empty intersection with . Since the Stone space is zero-dimensional, we can take and to be clopen, hence they correspond to non-trivial elements of . Say that corresponds to for , and note that is a non-trivial closed locally normal subgroup of . Since is -semisimple, the monolith of is non-abelian, and it follows by Lemma 5.1.3 that and do not commute. There is therefore some such that and do not commute. By Lemma 4.3.4, the intersection is non-discrete. We deduce that as elements of , so and have non-empty intersection as subspaces of .
We conclude that the action of on is topologically transitive; the same argument shows that . â
In general, the action of on need not be faithful. We can, however, say something about fixed points of topologically simple closed normal subgroups. Recall that is the set of non-trivial minimal closed normal subgroups of . For , recall also that is the least upper bound of in ; this follows by considering the map .
Lemma 7.2.2**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group that is [A]-semisimple, , and .
- (i)
Let be a non-trivial closed locally normal subgroup of . Suppose that , , and is fixed by the conjugation action of . Then is a proper non-trivial closed normal subgroup of . In particular, cannot be topologically simple. 2. (ii)
If is topologically simple, then there are no fixed points of the action of on such that .
Proof.
Take as hypothesized for (i). Let , take , and let . The conjugate centralizes an open subgroup of , and contains an open subgroup of , since is fixed by the conjugation action of . Thus, , and we deduce that is normal in . Applying Lemma 4.3.3, it follows that .
We see that . The centralizer is thus a non-trivial closed normal subgroup of , since is a normal subgroup of . On the other hand, intersects trivially, so is a proper subgroup of , proving (i).
For (ii), let and say that where . Since is the least upper bound of in , we see that , so by Lemma 4.3.4, we infer that .
Suppose that . Both and are locally normal subgroups, so Lemma 4.3.4 ensures that and commute. Hence, . Since , we have a contradiction to the hypothesis that . We conclude that . Since is topologically simple, part (i) implies that is not fixed by the action of . â
Proposition 7.2.3**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group that is [A]-semisimple and monolithic with a topologically simple monolith. Then
[TABLE]
and acts faithfully on unless .
Proof.
Recalling that when is the monolith of , the proposition is immediate from Lemma 7.2.2. â
7.3 Dynamics on the Stone space
The centralizer lattice is a local invariant, in the sense that is canonically isomorphic to for any open subgroup of . In particular, if acts faithfully on its centralizer lattice, then every open subgroup of acts faithfully on its own centralizer lattice. In the case that is regionally expansive, we can use the action of an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of to impose important homogeneity properties on the action of .
In our first proposition, we consider the slightly more general setting of -invariant subalgebras of . We do so for two reasons. First, there is a canonical subalgebra of called the decomposition lattice, see Caprace *et al. *, [2017a, b]. Second, the full centralizer lattice can be very large and difficult to determine, so it can be convenient to reduce to a -invariant subalgebra that is countable or can be obtained more explicitly (for example, such a subalgebra can be obtained from a micro-supported action of on a compact zero-dimensional space).
Proposition 7.3.1**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group that is regionally expansive, [A]-semisimple, and monolithic. Set , say that is a -invariant subalgebra, and suppose that acts non-trivially on .
- (i)
There exists with such that for all with , there is such that . 2. (ii)
Regarded as a subspace of , the set , for as in (i), is a dense subset that is both the unique smallest non-empty -invariant open subset and the complement of the fixed-point set of .
Proof.
For the proof of (i), let us begin with a reduction. In view of Corollary 4.3.6, we may find an expansive compactly generated open subgroup of such that is monolithic. Taking perhaps larger, we may also assume that the monolith of acts non-trivially on . The Boolean algebra is naturally isomorphic to . We are thus free to assume that is compactly generated. Say that where is a compact open symmetric identity neighborhood. Note also that as is monolithic and acts non-trivially on , it follows that acts faithfully on .
Fix a compact open subgroup of that does not contain and set . The group is commensurated and locally normal in . We see additionally that
[TABLE]
The compactness of ensures that is actually an intersection of finitely many conjugates of , so is an open subgroup of . Since is compact and acts faithfully on , there is a finite subset of such that the pointwise stabilizer is contained in . Given that we are working in a Boolean algebra on which has finite orbits, we can take to be a partition of that is preserved setwise by .
Take with . Let be a representative of and put . The group has non-trivial intersection with , since by Proposition 4.3.2. Since is a proper subgroup of the monolith , there is some conjugate of that is not contained in . Choose of minimal word length with respect to such that is not in . We may write for some of shorter length. Thus, , and since , we see that is a subgroup of but not . There is and such that . The conjugate preserves the partition setwise, so we have . Seeing as , the subgroup fixes every such that , and also fixes . It follows that .
At this point, we have a set of non-zero elements of such that for all with , there exists and such that . Let us consider of smallest possible size, and suppose there exist and such that . Then for some and , and the minimality of ensures and . Thus for all and distinct. On the other hand, by Proposition 7.2.1, acts topologically transitively on . For any non-empty open subsets of , some -translate of must intersect . We deduce that , completing the proof of claim (i).
We now consider claim (ii); here we do not assume that is compactly generated. Let be as in part (i) and let be regarded as a subspace of . The set is contained in every non-empty -invariant open subset of , and is itself non-empty and -invariant. Hence, is the unique smallest such set. In particular, the complement of has empty interior, so is dense in . Let be the complement of the fixed-point set of . Then is open, non-empty, and -invariant, so . On the other hand, where is a representative of . The support of is contained in , so every point of outside of is fixed by . We conclude that fixes the complement of . We deduce that , so as claimed. â
Remark 7.3.2**.**
One can consider more generally a t.d.l.c. group that is regionally expansive, [A]-semisimple, but not necessarily monolithic. In this case Proposition 4.3.5 applies and is non-empty but finite. The elements of then give rise to a canonical partition of with blocks corresponding to for .
Given , and given a -invariant subalgebra of containing such that acts faithfully on , then corresponds to a clopen -invariant subspace of , and the dynamics of on this subspace are as described in Proposition 7.3.1, via a similar proof. Alternatively, given that acts faithfully on , the kernel of the action of on the subspace of corresponding to is exactly , so one can pass to the monolithic quotient of . The action of on is faithful weakly decomposable in the sense of [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017a, Theorem II], so is [A]-semisimple. In addition, is regionally expansive by Proposition 4.4.3. Thus Proposition 7.3.1 applies directly to the quotient of .
We conclude by invoking the results from [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Section 6] to derive the following for robustly monolithic groups, which was established in loc. cit. for groups in the class .
Theorem 7.3.3**.**
For , the -action on , hence also the -action, is minimal, strongly proximal, and has a compressible open set. In particular, if is amenable, then .
Proof.
By Proposition 7.1.2, there is a -equivariant injective homomorphism of Boolean algebras from to . Thus occurs as a quotient of , so to show that the -action is minimal, strongly proximal, or has a compressible open set on , it suffices to show that the -action on has the corresponding property. The monolith is an element of by Lemma 5.1.4, and it is topologically simple. Furthermore, if is amenable, then so is . Replacing with , we may thus assume that is topologically simple. We may also assume , as all the conclusions are trivial in the case that .
Suppose for a contradiction that is fixed by . Let be the subgroup of consisting of those elements which fix pointwise some neighborhood of . The group is normalized by since fixes , and is non-trivial, as is micro-supported on . Thus is dense in .
By Theorem 5.2.2, there exists a compactly generated open subgroup such that . Let represent a non-empty clopen set of not containing , let be a compact open subgroup of normalizing , and set ; note that is non-trivial. Since is compactly generated and is dense in , Lemma 2.1.6 ensures the existence of elements such that . It follows that is transitive on the -conjugacy class of . The group thus contains the abstract normal closure of in . On the other hand, there exists a clopen neighborhood of which is pointwise fixed by . Therefore, fixes pointwise, so the monolith also fixes pointwise. However, by Proposition 7.3.1, the set of fixed points of on has empty interior, a contradiction.
The group thus has no fixed points on . Applying Proposition 7.3.1 (recalling that ), acts minimally with a non-empty compressible open set. The action is strongly proximal by [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Proposition 6.24]. If , then is non-amenable by [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Proposition 6.25]. â
Similar to Caprace *et al. *, [2017b], we obtain the following consequence regarding abstract simplicity.
Corollary 7.3.4**.**
Let be topologically simple. If has an open subgroup of the form such that and are non-trivial closed subgroups, then is abstractly simple.
Proof.
The hypotheses ensure that has a non-trivial decomposition lattice . The action of on is faithful by Proposition 7.2.3. The action is minimal by Theorem 7.3.3, and by the same theorem, there exists such that . By [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Proposition 6.29], it follows that the group is open in . Applying [Caprace *et al. *,, 2017b, Corollary 6.28], we deduce that is abstractly simple. â
8 The local prime content
8.1 Preliminaries
Let be the set of primes.
Definition 8.1.1**.**
The local prime content of a t.d.l.c. group is the subset of such that if contains an infinite pro- subgroup. Given a set , we say that is locally pro- if has an open pro- subgroup.
The local prime content is a local invariant of . If contains an infinite pro- subgroup, then so does every compact open subgroup of . For any set of primes , if is locally pro-, then . A t.d.l.c. group is discrete if and only if it is locally pro-. However, a non-discrete t.d.l.c. group can have an empty local prime content. An example is given by the pro-cyclic group . That group is not locally pro- for any finite set of primes .
Proposition 8.1.2**.**
For every regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group , the local prime content is finite, and is locally pro-. In particular, for each and compact open subgroup , the group has an infinite pro- subgroup, and thus is non-discrete.
Proof.
Suppose that is a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group. We can find a compactly generated open subgroup such that admits a compact open subgroup which has a trivial normal core in . Applying Proposition 2.1.3, we conclude that is pro- for some finite set of primes . Therefore, is locally pro-. â
8.2 The local prime content of locally normal subgroups
Lemma 8.2.1**.**
Let be a profinite group, be a closed normal subgroup, and be a pro--Sylow subgroup for some prime . Then the closure of in contains .
Proof.
Consider the closed subgroup of . The subgroup is a pro--Sylow subgroup of , and Theorem 2.4.5 ensures that is dense in . We view as the -localization of and denote by the continuous dense embedding given by the inclusion map. Set . The group is a closed normal subgroup of . Since commensurates itself, we have . The kernel of the continuous map is , and the restriction of that map to the subgroup is surjective. We therefore have . Furthermore, , so . Hence,
[TABLE]
By definition, , and the required assertion follows. â
Lemma 8.2.2**.**
Let be a profinite group, be a closed normal subgroup, and be a pro--Sylow subgroup for some prime . If , then is dense in .
Proof.
Consider the closed subgroup of . Since , we have . Therefore, Lemma 8.2.1 ensures that is dense in .
We infer that is normal in . Since , it follows that is in fact a discrete normal subgroup of the localization . Hence . This implies that , and the desired result follows. â
Proposition 8.2.3**.**
Let , be a compact open subgroup, and be an infinite pro--Sylow subgroup of for some prime . For every non-trivial locally normal subgroup of , the intersection is infinite.
Proof.
Let be a locally normal subgroup of with finite; without loss of generality is compact. There is a compact open subgroup and a normal subgroup commensurate with such that . Let be a pro--Sylow subgroup of containing . The intersection is finite, so upon replacing by its intersection with a sufficiently small open normal subgroup of , we may assume that is trivial.
Lemma 8.2.2 ensures that is dense in . On the other hand, the group is a subgroup of the localization which is contained in . By Theorem 5.4.1, the quasi-center is trivial. We infer that is trivial, and so is trivial. The group is thus finite. Any finite locally normal subgroup is contained in the quasi-center. Invoking again Theorem 5.4.1, we deduce that is trivial. Every non-trivial locally normal subgroup therefore has an infinite intersection with any infinite pro--Sylow subgroup. â
Corollary 8.2.4**.**
Let and be any set of primes. Then has a non-trivial locally normal virtually pro- subgroup if and only if is locally pro-.
Proof.
Suppose that there exists a non-trivial locally normal virtually pro- subgroup of and fix a compact open subgroup of . The group is infinite, via Theorem 5.4.1. Proposition 8.2.3 ensures any infinite pro--Sylow subgroup of has infinite intersection with . The local prime content of is thus contained in , hence is virtually pro-. We conclude that is locally pro-. The converse is trivial. â
The following consequence implies that the -localization can only have topologically finitely generated compact open subgroups if the ambient group was already locally pro-.
Corollary 8.2.5**.**
Let and be a prime. Then the following are equivalent.
- (i)
Every compact open subgroup of is topologically finitely generated and virtually pro-. 2. (ii)
Some compact open subgroup of has a topologically finitely generated infinite pro--Sylow subgroup.
In particular, if is has topologically finitely generated compact open subgroups, then either is discrete or .
Proof.
The implication is clear. Conversely, let be a compact open subgroup and be an infinite topologically finitely generated pro--Sylow subgroup of . Let denote the set of all primes different from . Then is not locally pro-, so by Corollary 8.2.4, none of the non-trivial locally normal subgroups of are pro-. In particular, the -core of is trivial, so applying Corollary 2.4.7, is virtually pro-. We conclude that is locally pro-. The group is thus open, and assertion (i) follows. â
We also record the following consequence for future references.
Lemma 8.2.6**.**
Let and be a prime. If , then for every compact locally normal subgroup , we have .
Proof.
Let be a compact open subgroup of containing as a normal subgroup. We know that is [A]-semisimple by Proposition 5.1.2, so by Lemma 4.3.4, it suffices to show that . Setting , we have since is [A]-semisimple. Therefore, maps continuously and injectively into the pro- group , so . In view of Corollary 8.2.4, the hypothesis that ensures that is trivial. Hence, , and by Lemma 4.3.4. This shows that . The reverse inclusion is obvious. â
8.3 The local prime content of groups of automorphisms
We can upgrade Proposition 8.1.2 to t.d.l.c. groups of automorphisms of , provided has a trivial quasi-center.
Proposition 8.3.1**.**
Let be a regionally expansive t.d.l.c. group with a trivial quasi-center. If is a locally compact group and is a continuous, injective homomorphism, then is a t.d.l.c. group with finite local prime content , and is locally pro-.
Proof.
Proposition 2.2.2 ensures that is a t.d.l.c. group. Setting , we see by Proposition 4.4.3 that is regionally expansive. Proposition 8.1.2 implies that locally pro- for some finite set . The group is also regionally expansive, so is locally pro- for some finite set . Applying Lemma 2.2.1, there is a continuous, injective homomorphism , so is locally pro-. It now follows that is locally pro- where . The group is thus locally pro-, and thus has finite local prime content. â
We place stronger restriction on the local prime content for automorphisms of robustly monolithic groups.
Theorem 8.3.2**.**
Let with monolith . If is a locally compact group and is a continuous, injective homomorphism, then is a t.d.l.c. group with . Moreover is locally pro-.
Proof.
Set ; note that as a consequence of Corollary 8.2.4.
By Proposition 8.3.1, is a locally pro- t.d.l.c. group for some finite set of primes . To show that , it suffices to show for some compact open subgroup of ; we may thus assume that is a compact pro- group.
Suppose for a contradiction is not virtually pro-. For each , there are then finite discrete quotients of such that the -order of (that is, the largest factor of that is coprime to all ) tends to infinity as . Since is compact, it has compact orbits on , so can be expressed as a directed union of -invariant compactly generated open subgroups of . As each has finite index in , there is an -invariant compactly generated open subgroup of such that the kernel of the action of on satisfies . Possibly taking the larger, we may assume that for all in view of Theorem 5.2.2 and that is -increasing.
Let , let , and write . By construction, is a -compact open subgroup of , and by Theorem 5.2.2. In view of Lemma 4.1.6, is second countable. The map induces a continuous injective homomorphism , and as is second countable, the topology of is second countable. The group is compact, so is a closed map, implying that is also second countable.
Form the semidirect product , using the action of on given by , and identify and with the subgroups and respectively. Let and let . Corollary 5.3.2 ensures that is robustly monolithic. The subgroups and normalize each other and have trivial intersection, since , so and commute inside .
Note that since is open in . Take a compact open pro- subgroup. By the definition of the Braconnier topology (see [Hewitt & Ross,, 1979, Definition (26.3)]), the set-wise stabilizer of in is an open subgroup of , ensuring that is locally normal in . The corresponding subgroup of is then a non-trivial locally normal pro- subgroup of . It follows by Corollary 8.2.4 that is locally pro-. Since is a compact subgroup of , it follows in turn that is virtually pro-, so is virtually pro-. Finally, is locally pro- via Lemma 2.2.1(v), so is virtually pro-. We conclude that is virtually pro-. On the other hand, maps continuously onto the finite groups , whose -order is unbounded as . This contradicts the fact that is virtually pro-. From this contradiction, we conclude that is in fact virtually pro-, so, , as required. â
Corollary 8.3.3**.**
If (e.g. ) is locally pro-, then any locally compact group that continuously, faithfully acts on by topological group automorphisms is locally pro-.
The above theorem shows that the class of automorphism groups of robustly monolithic groups, and in particular of groups in , admits non-trivial restrictions. For example, does not continuously embed into for any . One can go further and formulate likely very difficult analogues of the Schreier Conjecture for the classes and .
Question 8.3.4**.**
Is every locally compact group that acts faithfully, continuously by outer automorphisms on some regionally elementary?
Question 8.3.5**.**
Is every such that is regionally elementary?
8.4 The centralizer lattice of a -localization
Proposition 5.1.2 ensures every member of is [A]-semisimple. The class is closed under taking dense locally compact subgroups, so the -localization of any is an element of as soon it is non-discrete. In view of Caprace *et al. *, [2017a], we deduce that the centralizer lattice of non-discrete -localizations is well defined. We now obtain an analogue of Proposition 7.1.2 for -localizations, giving in particular a canonical embedding of into .
Theorem 8.4.1**.**
Let , be a compact open subgroup, and be an infinite pro--Sylow subgroup for some prime . The map defined by
[TABLE]
enjoys the following properties, where is the -localization .
- (i)
It is order-preserving, -equivariant, and every non-zero element has a non-zero image; 2. (ii)
; 3. (iii)
the restriction to the centralizer lattice yields an injective homomorphism of Boolean lattices; and 4. (iv)
if in addition , then acts faithfully on , and acts faithfully on .
Proof.
We may assume that is not locally pro-, since otherwise and the required assertions are trivially satisfied. Every non-zero class has non-zero image by Proposition 8.2.3. Let be a compact locally normal subgroup. We then have by Lemma 8.2.6. Let be a compact open subgroup of containing as a normal subgroup and be a pro- Sylow subgroup of containing . The groups and are commensurate, so they have the same commensurator in . Moreover, the closure of contains by Lemma 8.2.1. Therefore,
[TABLE]
In particular, . All the hypotheses of Lemma 7.1.1 are now verified, and the remaining claims of (i) and (ii) and also claim (iii) follow.
For (iv), Proposition 7.2.3 ensures that if , then the -action on is faithful. Since the map by is injective and -equivariant, we deduce that the -action on its centralizer lattice is faithful. â
Remark 8.4.2**.**
The map is usually not injective on the whole structure lattice . For instance, if is the group of type-preserving automorphisms of the regular tree of degree and is an odd prime such that , then the abelianization of an edge-stabilizer is an infinite elementary abelian -group, and the pro--Sylow subgroups of are infinite. The group and its closed derived group are not commensurate, but they have the same image in .
9 Examples
9.1 Germs of automorphisms
In the context of t.d.l.c. groups, the local structure of the group is manifested in its compact open subgroups, allowing for a useful notion of local homomorphisms. We borrow the terminology of Caprace & De Medts, [2011].
Definition 9.1.1**.**
A local homomorphism between two t.d.l.c. groups and is a continuous homomorphism , where is an open subgroup of . It is a local isomorphism if restricts to an isomorphism from to an open subgroup of . We say and are locally isomorphic if a local isomorphism exists. Two local homomorphisms are equivalent if they agree on some open subgroup of that is contained in the domain of both and . The equivalence class of a local homomorphism is then called the germ of .
In the case of groups with trivial quasi-center, Barnea, Ershov and Weigel Barnea *et al. *, [2011] show that there is always a unique largest group in a given local isomorphism class.
Theorem 9.1.2** (see Barnea *et al. *, [2011] and Caprace & De Medts, [2011]).**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group with trivial quasi-center. Define the group of germs of automorphisms of to be the set of germs of local isomorphisms from to itself.
- (i)
* has a group structure induced by composition of local isomorphisms.* 2. (ii)
Let be defined by . Then is an injective group homomorphism, and there is a unique group topology on such that is continuous and open. 3. (iii)
If and are continuous, open, and injective homomorphisms where and are t.d.l.c. groups, then there is a unique continuous and open homomorphism with kernel such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
As noted in Barnea *et al. *, [2011] and Caprace & De Medts, [2011], the above theorem leads to a largest topologically simple group in a given local isomorphism class.
Corollary 9.1.3**.**
Let be a topologically simple t.d.l.c. group with . Then there is a topologically simple t.d.l.c. group with , unique up to isomorphism, such that the following hold.
- (i)
* embeds as an open subgroup of ;* 2. (ii)
For any topologically simple t.d.l.c. group locally isomorphic to , there is an open embedding .
Furthermore, if is regionally expansive, then , , and are all robustly monolithic.
If , then also . However, in general, even if we start with , the corresponding universal simple group for the local isomorphism class need not be compactly generated or even -compact. The following is an illustration of this situation.
Example 9.1**.**
In Smith, [2017], S.M. Smith constructs a family of pairwise non-isomorphic groups in that are all abstractly simple and locally isomorphic to one another. Let be the topologically simple group in afforded by applying Corollary 9.1.3 to some (any) of the . Since a -compact t.d.l.c. group has only countably many compactly generated open subgroups, we deduce that is not -compact. Given that each is abstractly simple, it is clear that has no proper dense normal subgroup, so it is abstractly simple. The group is therefore a simple group contained in but not in .
We also note that contains open subgroups belonging to that are topologically simple, -compact and not compactly generated. In order to see this, we build a countable ascending chain of open simple subgroups of as follows. Pick any and set . For , since has countably many compactly generated open subgroups, there exists such that is not contained in . Set . The group is then a compactly generated open subgroup of containing as a proper subgroup. Since , the open subgroup also has trivial quasi-center and hence has no non-trivial discrete normal subgroups. It then follows that every non-trivial normal subgroup of intersects the open subgroup non-trivially, hence contains , for all such that . Since is generated by subgroups , we infer that is abstractly simple. We now see that is an open, -compact abstractly simple subgroup of that is not compactly generated. Additionally, belongs to the class since it has trivial quasi-center and each is compactly generated and expansive.
9.2 Restricted Burger-Mozes groups
Following Serre, [1980], a graph consists of a vertex set , a directed edge set , a map assigning to each edge an initial vertex, and a bijection , denoted by and called edge reversal such that . A tree is a connected graph without cycles. A tree is -regular if for each vertex there are many distinct edges such that .
Let be the -regular tree for (at this point, we allow to be an infinite cardinal). A coloring of is a map such that
[TABLE]
is a bijection for every where is the collection of edges with . For and a coloring of , the local action of at is defined to be
[TABLE]
Definition 1**.**
Let be the regular tree. For a permutation group and a coloring, the BurgerâMozes group with local action prescribed by via is
[TABLE]
From now until the end of this subsection, we assume that is finite. The BurgerâMozes groups are always closed subgroups of . The subspace topology therefore induces a t.d.l.c. group topology on . We always take to be equipped with this topology.
Let us pause to recall some basic facts about groups acting on locally finite trees.
Lemma 2** ([Caprace & De Medts,, 2011, Lemma 2.4]).**
Let be a locally finite tree, let be a closed subgroup of , and let be a minimal -invariant subtree. Then is compactly generated if and only if acts on with finitely many orbits.
Lemma 3** ([Tits,, 1970, Corollaire 3.5]).**
Suppose that is a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group acting continuously on a locally finite tree and suppose that does not fix a vertex or end. Then there is a unique minimal -invariant subtree .
There is a well-behaved family of colorings, under which to consider the groups .
Definition 4**.**
We say that a coloring of a -regular tree is legal if for each edge , where is the reverse edge.
One can obtain a legally colored -regular tree . For example, take the group
[TABLE]
let be the Cayley graph of with respect to , and set for all .
Proposition 5** (BurgerâMozes, [Burger & Mozes,, 2000a, Section 3.2]).**
Let , be the -regular tree, and . If and are legal colorings of , then .
When is a legal coloring, the groups have several important features.
Proposition 6** (See [Burger & Mozes,, 2000a, Proposition 3.2.1]).**
Let be the regular tree, a legal coloring of , and a permutation group which does not act freely on . Then, the group is compactly generated and monolithic, and its monolith is abstractly simple and coincides with the subgroup , which is generated by the pointwise stabilizers of edges. Additionally, the following conditions are equivalent.
- (i)
is virtually in . 2. (ii)
is in . 3. (iii)
is finite. 4. (iv)
. 5. (v)
is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers.
Proof 9.2**.**
By [Burger & Mozes,, 2000a, Proposition 3.2.1], is abstractly simple and is the monolith of , and (iii)-(v) are equivalent. To show that (i), (ii) and (iii) are equivalent, it is enough to show that is compactly generated if and only if is finite.
The group acts transitively on the vertices of , so it is compactly generated by Lemma 2. Thus, if has finite index, then it is compactly generated. Conversely, if is compactly generated, then the unique minimal -invariant subtree, as provided by Lemma 3, is also -invariant, so this subtree must in fact be itself. By Lemma 2, has finitely many orbits on the vertices of . Since contains a finite index subgroup of a vertex stabilizer in , it follows that is finite.
There is an important generalization of the BurgerâMozes groups due to Le Boudec Le Boudec, [2016], which we shall see gives examples of dense locally compact subgroups.
Definition 7**.**
Say that and is the -regular tree. For a permutation groups and a coloring, the restricted BurgerâMozes group with local action prescribed by and via is
[TABLE]
where ââ is read âfor all but finitely many.â
Remark 8**.**
The name for the groups recalls the analogy with restricted direct products. That is to say, a restricted BurgerâMozes group is to a BurgerâMozes group as a restricted direct product is to a direct product.
The group is always a subgroup of , and it contains . There is a natural t.d.l.c. group topology on under which continuously embeds as an open subgroup. This is proved in Le Boudec, [2016] for a legal coloring, but the same proof works for illegal colorings.
Remark 9**.**
In Le Boudec, [2016], the author colors the undirected edges of trees, which is equivalent to assuming that all colorings are legal. It turns out that the restricted Burger-Mozes groups for illegal colorings give a large family of interesting examples, well beyond those considered in Le Boudec, [2016]. In a forthcoming article, we will explore these groups and their properties. In particular, we will use these groups to describe -localizations of many Burger-Mozes groups.
Given a partition of , the Young group associated to is the set of such that set-wise fixes each part of . If is given by the orbits of some , we denote the Young group by . Note that .
Proposition 10** (Le Boudec, [Le Boudec,, 2016, Proposition 3.5, Corollary 3.8]).**
Let , be the -regular tree, and be a legal coloring of . If are subgroups of , then is a dense subgroup of , and is compactly generated.
In view of Proposition 6, is in whenever is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers and does not act freely. One thus obtains many examples of dense locally compact subgroups of groups via the groups . Let us note a specific example.
Example 9.3**.**
Let be a legal coloring of the -regular tree. The type preserving subgroup of is a dense locally compact subgroup of .
We now characterize when is virtually simple. First, some preparatory lemmas.
Lemma 11**.**
Suppose that is a compactly generated t.d.l.c. group which acts vertex transitively and continuously on a graph with regionally compact vertex stabilizers. If is closed and acts with finitely many orbits on , then is cocompact in .
Proof 9.4**.**
Let be a vertex of and let denote the -orbit of . Since is normal, the group permutes the -orbits of vertices. By hypothesis, there are finitely many such, so that the setwise stabilizer of is of finite index in . The transitivity of on implies that , where is the stabilizer of the vertex . Since is regionally compact, where is a directed sequence of compact open subgroups. We thus deduce that . On the other hand, has finite index in , so it is also compactly generated. There is thus some such that . We conclude that is cocompact in , verifying the lemma.
Via the discussion in [Le Boudec,, 2016, Section 3.1], the action of on the tree is such that vertex stabilizers are regionally compact. Since a closed subgroup of a regionally compact group is regionally compact, we note the following.
Lemma 12**.**
Let , be the -regular tree, be a legal coloring of , and be subgroups of . If is a closed subgroup of that fixes a vertex of , then is regionally compact.
Our characterization is now in hand.
Proposition 13**.**
Take , let be a legal coloring of the -regular tree, and be such that the action of is not free. If , then is virtually simple if and only if is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers.
Proof 9.5**.**
Suppose first that has a simple normal subgroup of finite index. Since does not act freely, Proposition 6 ensures that is a non-discrete simple open subgroup of , and this subgroup is the monolith of . The group is dense in , so contains . The intersection is an infinite normal subgroup of , so it must intersect non-trivially. As is simple, in fact . That has finite index in now implies that has finite index in . Via Proposition 6, is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers.
Conversely, suppose that is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers. Via [Le Boudec,, 2016, Corollary 4.6], every non-trivial normal subgroup of contains the commutator subgroup for every edge . Furthermore, [Le Boudec,, 2016, Lemma 4.8] ensures that these commutator subgroups are non-trivial. It follows that is monolithic, and appealing to [Le Boudec,, 2016, Corollary 4.9], admits a simple monolith . The closure is a normal subgroup of and therefore contains . In particular, acts with finitely many orbits on . Since vertex stabilizers are open, indeed acts with finitely many orbits on .
By Lemma 12, the vertex stabilizers in for the action on are regionally compact. Lemma 11 implies that is in fact cocompact in . Applying again [Le Boudec,, 2016, Corollary 4.9], is open in , so has finite index in .
The previous proposition applies even in the case that acts freely, making discrete. We, however, are primarily interested in the non-discrete examples , and our next theorem gives further information on these groups. It should be compared with the corresponding property of the BurgerâMozes group recalled in Proposition 6.
Theorem 14**.**
Take and let be a legal coloring of the -regular tree. Suppose that are such that does not act freely. Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
is transitive and generated by its point stabilizers; 2. (ii)
is virtually in ; 3. (iii)
is in .
Proof 9.6**.**
That and are equivalent follows from Proposition 13 and Proposition 10. Suppose that holds. Via Proposition 6, the group is in . The group is a dense locally compact subgroup of , so is in as soon as it is non-discrete, in view of Theorem 5.4.1. The group is non-discrete exactly when does not act freely on , which we assume to hold. Hence, , and holds.
To show that implies , suppose that . Let be the monolith; this subgroup is necessarily open since it contains . Via Theorem 5.2.2, there is such that is a compactly generated open subgroup of and . Since , the monolith of is regionally expansive, and in particular, the monolith is not regionally compact and so cannot be contained in any regionally compact subgroup. Lemma 12 ensures that the monolith of fixes none of the vertices of . Therefore, given any non-trivial normal subgroup of , the group does not fix any vertex of .
In the stabilizer of any end of , the elliptic isometries form an open normal subgroup; thus if fixes an end, then the monolith of must consist of elliptic isometries. This implies the monolith is regionally compact, which contradicts the fact that the monolith is regionally expansive. We deduce that fixes no vertex or end. Lemma 3 now supplies a minimal invariant subtree for , and acts on with finitely many orbits by Lemma 2.
If is not equal to , then we can find an edge such that for one of the two half trees and determined by ; we assume without loss of generality that . The group has Titsâ property , so , and thus, . The group is infinite and compact in , so is infinite. On the other hand, fixes pointwise, so is in the kernel of the action of on . This contradicts our earlier conclusion that no non-trivial normal subgroup of fixes any vertex of . We conclude that , so acts with finitely many orbits on .
The monolith of thus acts with finitely many orbits on . Applying Lemma 11, we conclude that in fact has finite index in . Since is simple, we have established .
Remark 15**.**
In Le Boudec, [2016], several sufficient conditions ensuring that is virtually simple are found. Our result Proposition 13 subsumes all of these. We note that more precise information is obtained on the index of the simple subgroup in Le Boudec, [2016], for the special cases considered.
9.3 Further examples of simple groups in
The goal of this final section is to provide further motivation to consider the class by constructing examples of non-discrete dense locally compact subgroups of groups in . In Proposition 1, we obtain an example of a non-discrete simple t.d.l.c. group in that is not -compact, but embeds as dense locally compact subgroup of a group in . In Example 9.9, we obtain an example of a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup of a group in such that no compactly generated subgroup of is dense in .
Following Caprace & De Medts, [2011], for a finite permutation group , denotes the profinite wreath branch group given by , which is defined as the projective limit of iterated permutational wreath products of with itself. If is a subgroup of , we may naturally view as a closed subgroup of . We note that the commensurator is dense in for any , since the commensurator contains the union of the finitely iterated wreath products of copies of . We also observe that is a branch group, and the rigid vertex stabilizers are isomorphic to . The proofs of these facts are exercises in the definitions.
Let be the -regular tree, let be a legal coloring, and fix an edge . Set and . The edge stabilizers and are isomorphic to and , respectively, where the symbol denotes the direct product . Letting be the Klein four group, is the pro--Sylow subgroup of . Via Theorem 2.4.5, is dense in . In particular, is non-compact since it contains . On the other hand, contains , by the first paragraph. We deduce that is a non-compact open subgroup of . The only such subgroups of are and (this can for example be deduced from the fact that has the HoweâMoore property, see [Burger & Mozes,, 2000b, Theorem 4.2]; an alternative direct proof can be found in [Caprace & De Medts,, 2011, Theorem A]). Therefore, is dense in the group , and is an element of by Proposition 6.
We now consider with the -localized topology. Since is in , the group is a member of by Theorem 5.4.1. Let be the monolith and observe that is a dense locally compact subgroup of . Additionally, is a topologically simple group.
Proposition 1**.**
is not -compact.
Proof 9.7**.**
Set and recall that is a branch group. Since is non-discrete, the intersection is non-trivial and open in . As has a trivial quasi-centralizer, it follows that is non-trivial (indeed infinite) by Proposition 7.1.2. Via the proof of [Grigorchuk,, 2000, Theorem 4] or, alternatively, of [Le Maßtre & Wesolek,, 2017, Theorem 3.2], we may find a vertex such that the derived subgroup is a subgroup of .
The group contains a copy of , so . In view of [Caprace & De Medts,, 2011, Lemma 6.6], , hence . Letting be as fixed above, it follows that is uncountable, so is not -compact, since is a compact open subgroup of .
The group is thus a non--compact topologically simple group in which is a dense locally compact subgroup of a group in . This shows that we cannot limit our considerations to second countable groups, even if we restrict to the topologically simple members of which embed into groups in .
The group serves to illustrate two other phenomena. The -localization of is with the -localized topology. Our group embeds densely into . The subgroup is not commensurated in , so is properly contained in . Furthermore, one can check that is not normal in . The group is thus a locally pro- group that admits a proper dense locally compact subgroup such that the conclusions of (i) and (ii) of Proposition 3.2.1 fail. This example shows why, in Proposition 3.2.1, one cannot remove the hypothesis that have a compact open subgroup that is topologically finitely generated.
The group also lies in a length two inclusion chain of groups in with each a proper dense locally compact subgroup of the next:
[TABLE]
Remark 2**.**
It is indeed possible to find abstractly simple groups and in which are both locally pro- and such that is a dense locally compact subgroup of . (The groups and are restricted Burger-Mozes groups for an illegal coloring.) The conclusion of Corollary 3.2.2 thus fails for the group ; the only hypothesis of Corollary 3.2.2 that fails is that does not have a compact open subgroup that is topologically finitely generated. This illustrates, as with Proposition 3.2.1, the relevance of the hypothesis in Corollary 3.2.2 that have a compact open subgroup that is topologically finitely generated. Additionally, and are members of a length two inclusion chain in with each group a dense locally compact subgroup of the next. In a later article, we will discuss the details of this construction.
Finally, we give an example of a dense locally compact subgroup in a group such that no compactly generated subgroup of is dense in . Our construction is based on the following.
Lemma 3**.**
Let be a t.d.l.c. group and be an ascending chain of closed subgroups. Let be compact open subgroup, be a prime, and be a pro--Sylow subgroup of . Assume that . For each , let and set , viewed as a t.d.l.c. group endowed with the -localized topology. If , then is a dense locally compact subgroup of . If in addition for all , then no compactly generated subgroup of is dense in .
Proof 9.8**.**
Since for all , it follows that is a pro--Sylow of for all . In particular, is the -localization , so by Theorem 2.4.5. Therefore contains for all . It follows that is dense in as soon as the union is dense.
The group is an open subgroup of for each . Since the form an ascending chain whose union is the whole group , every compactly generated subgroup is contained in for some . Thus, , and the desired assertion follows.
Example 9.9**.**
Let be an integer, let be the -regular tree and , so that by Proposition 6. Let be an edge stabilizer, let be an odd prime, and let be a pro--Sylow subgroup of . In the notation introduced above, we have and , where is a -Sylow subgroup of . Since is odd, the group is also a -Sylow subgroup of , so that is contained in (necessarily as a pro--Sylow subgroup). Moreover is non-discrete since .
The existence of an ascending chain of closed subgroups of satisfying all the hypotheses of Lemma 3 can be extracted from the work of N. Radu from Radu, [2017a]. We describe the construction briefly, using freely the notation from [Radu,, 2017a, §4]. In particular, it follows from the Lemma that has a non-discrete dense locally compact subgroup such that no compactly generated subgroup of is dense in .
Assume first that is odd. For each , set in the notation of [Radu,, 2017a, Definition 4.1], where . Then . In particular, as observed above, we have and the group is non-discrete. By [Radu,, 2017a, Proposition 4.8], we have for all . Using that is odd, one verifies that for all . Finally, the fact that can be established using a similar argument as in the proof of [Caprace & Radu,, 2016, Fact 1 in Appendix A].
In the case where is even, it is no longer true that is contained in for all , so the definition of must be modified. In that case, we set , where the set is defined inductively by setting and for , where is the function defined after Lemma 4.2 in Radu, [2017b]. The inclusion then follows from [Radu,, 2017b, Lemma 4.5], and the other verifications are similar as in the case where is odd.
\acks
We would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge for support and hospitality during the program Non-positive curvature group actions and cohomology. We would also like to thank the Winter of Disconnectedness program for its support and hospitality. Substantial progress on this work was made while attending these programs. P.-E. Caprace is a F.R.S.-FNRS senior research associate, supported in part by EPSRC grant no EP/K032208/1. C. D. Reid was an ARC DECRA fellow, supported in part by ARC Discovery Project DP120100996. We thank the referee for his or her many detailed and useful comments.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Bader & Gelander, [2017] Bader, Uri, & Gelander, Tsachik. 2017. Equicontinuous actions of semisimple groups. Groups Geom. Dyn. , 11 (3).
- 2Barnea et al. , [2011] Barnea, Yiftach, Ershov, Mikhail, & Weigel, Thomas. 2011. Abstract commensurators of profinite groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 363 (10), 5381â5417.
- 3Bourbaki, [1989] Bourbaki, Nicolas. 1989. Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 1â3 . Elements of Mathematics (Berlin). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Translated from the French, Reprint of the 1975 edition.
- 4Bourbaki, [1998] Bourbaki, Nicolas. 1998. General topology. Chapters 1â4 . Elements of Mathematics (Berlin). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Translated from the French, Reprint of the 1989 English translation.
- 5Breuillard & Gelander, [2003] Breuillard, E., & Gelander, T. 2003. On dense free subgroups of Lie groups. J. Algebra , 261 (2), 448â467.
- 6Burger & Mozes, [2000 a] Burger, Marc, & Mozes, Shahar. 2000 a. Groups acting on trees: from local to global structure. Inst. Hautes Ătudes Sci. Publ. Math. , 113â150 (2001).
- 7Burger & Mozes, [2000 b] Burger, Marc, & Mozes, Shahar. 2000 b. Lattices in product of trees. Inst. Hautes Ătudes Sci. Publ. Math. , 151â194 (2001).
- 8Capdeboscq & RĂ©my, [2014] Capdeboscq, Inna, & RĂ©my, Bertrand. 2014. On some pro- p đ p groups from infinite-dimensional Lie theory. Math. Z. , 278 (1-2), 39â54.
