Hyperballeans of groups
D. Dikranjan, I. Protasov, N. Zava

TL;DR
This paper introduces ballean structures on the power set of groups, especially focusing on the lattice of subgroups, to explore the relationship between algebraic and geometric properties of groups.
Contribution
It defines new ballean structures on subgroup lattices and investigates how these structures reflect the algebraic relationships between different groups.
Findings
Ballean structures can encode subgroup lattice properties.
Relations between groups can be studied via their subgroup balleans.
New connections between algebraic and geometric group properties are established.
Abstract
In this paper we define some ballean structure on the power set of a group and, in particular, we study the subballean with support the lattice of all its subgroups. If is a group, we denote by the family of all subgroups of . For two groups and , we relate their algebraic structure via the ballean structure of and .
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeometric and Algebraic Topology · Analytic and geometric function theory · Advanced Algebra and Geometry
Hyperballeans of groups
D. Dikranjan, I. Protasov, N. Zava
Department of mathematical, Computer and Physical Sciences, Udine University, 33 100 Udine, Italy
Department of Computer Science and Cybernetics, Kyiv University, Volodymyrska 64, 01033, Kyiv, Ukraine
Department of mathematical, Computer and Physical Sciences, Udine University, 33 100 Udine, Italy
Abstract.
In this paper we define some ballean structure on the power set of a group and, in particular, we study the subballean with support the lattice of all its subgroups. If is a group, we denote by the family of all subgroups of . For two groups and , we relate their algebraic structure via the ballean structure of and .
MSC :54E15, 20F65, 20F15, 20E99
Keywords : ballean, coarse structure, coarse map, asymorphism, asymptotic dimension, balleas defined by ideals, hyperballeans.
The first named author was partially supported by grant PSD-2015-2017-DIMA-PRID-DIKRANJAN TokaDyMA of Udine University.
Introduction
Coarse geometry is the study of large-scale properties of spaces, ignoring their local, small-scale, ones. It was initially developed for metric spaces and it found important applications to Novikov conjecture, to coarse Baum-Connes conjecture, and to geometric group theory, after Gromov breakthrough. Inspired by uniformities, Roe defined coarse spaces in order to encode many large-scale properties of metric spaces ([20]). At the same time, Protasov and Banakh ([16]) defined balleans, an equivalent construction that generalises balls in a metric space. For a categorical look at the balleans and coarse spaces see [7]. On group , one can define some ballean structures that agree with the algebraic structure of the group. Of particular interest is the finitary ballean , generated by the family of all finite subsets of a group .
A relevant issue is the exploration of properties in coarse geometry related to well-known ones in topology (see, for example, [2]). For instance, there is some evidences that connectedness in the framework of balleans is the large-scale counterpart of the Hausdorff property in topological and uniform spaces. Another outstanding example of this approach is the asymptotic dimension defined by Gromov, inspired by the classical covering (Lebesgue) dimension.
We now mention a further instance of this approach. For every given ballean , in [17] the authors introduced the hyperballean of , which is a ballean structure on the family of all non-empty bounded subsets of . In [6], the ballean structure was extended to the whole power set of by introducing the ballean structure . The definition of was inspired by the theory of uniform spaces. In fact, if is a uniform space, the Hausdorff-Bourbaki hyperspace is a uniform structure on the power set of and it extends the uniform hyperspace of , which is the restriction of the Hausdorff-Bourbaki hyperspace to the family of all closed subsets of (see, for example, [13] for a discussion about uniform hyperspaces, and [6] for further details about similarities between uniform hyperspaces and hyperballeans).
Recall that the Hausdorff-Bourbaki hyperspace of a Hausdorff uniform space is not Hausdorff in general. Similarly, as we may have expected, in general, is highly disconnected even if is connected (see [6] and Proposition 3.34). In order to obtain a more manageable object there are two approaches. The first one is focusing the attention on . In fact, is connected whenever is connected. Alternatively, if we start from a ballean defined on a group , we can consider the subballean , where is the family of all subgroups of . This second idea is developed in this paper.
Here, we mainly focus on two ballean structures on the subgroup lattice of a group . The first one, denoted by , is called the subgroup exponential hyperballean, while the second one, denoted by , is called the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean. The latter can be characterised as follows: it is the ballean structure on induced by the extended-metric
[TABLE]
where and are two subgroups of . Actually, we provide a ballean structure, , on the entire power set of such that is the restriction of to . The balleans and have also the same connected components determined by the property that two subgroups are in the same connected component if and only if they are commensurable. In particular, the existence of isolated points (i.e., points in whose connected components is just a singleton) is closely related to divisibility. In fact, we show that a subgroup of is isolated if and only if it is divisible and has a torsion-free direct summand.
Moreover, while all examples of subgroup exponential hyperballeans we considered have asymptotic dimension [math], the behaviour of asymptotic dimension of subgroup logarithmic hyperballeans is much more interesting. In particular, we compute it for some well known groups, such as () or the Prüffer -group (), where is a prime, we find necessary conditions on an abelian groups that imply ( has to be torsion and layerly finite), and we characterise those groups with ( has to be torsion, reduced and with all -ranks finite).
The last part of our study is focused on answering the following natural question. If and are two isomorphic groups, then and are asymorphic (i.e., isomorphic in the category of balleans and coarse maps) and we write . Moreover, the isomorphism between and yields also . However, the converse is not true in general. As a ``rigidity result'' we mean a set of conditions that imply that these converse implications holds. In other words, it is a collection of properties that implies that is isomorphic to whenever or . Note that this is not the usual notion of rigidity in large-scale geometry (see, for example, [20]). In particular, we focus on some special cases, namely, for a group , we investigate the hypothesis , , , and , for some prime, and we obtain the following:
Theorem A**.**
Let be a group.
Suppose that has an element of infinite order. Then if and only if . 2.
Suppose that is abelian, then if and only if either or , for some prime .
Theorem B**.**
Let be a group and be a prime.
if and only if ; 2.
if and only if for some prime .
The paper is organised as follows. In Section 1 we provide the necessary background in coarse geometry and then, in Section 2, both the exponential hyperballean, , (§2.1) and the logarithmic hyperballean, , (§2.2) are introduced. In particular, we prove in §2.1 that the exponential ballean of a cellular ballean is cellular. Section 3 is devoted to the subgroup exponential hyperballean and the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean. In the first part of this section, we discuss a characterisation of the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean and the connected components of the balleans and . In particular, in §3.1 we show how the existence of isolated points is related to divisibility. Furthermore, §3.2 is devoted to the study of the subgroup exponential hyperballean, while §3.3 is focused on the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean, with a particular emphasis on its asymptotic dimension. In Section 3.4 we present and briefly discuss another ballean structure, , on the power set of a group , namely, the one induced by the action of on its power set by left shifts. In particular we show that, if is infinite, the number of connected components of , , and coincides and it is . In Section 4 we prove our rigidity results. More in detail, in §4.1 we show the ones concerning the subgroup exponential hyperballean (e.g., Theorem A), while in §4.2 we consider the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean (Theorem B is proved there). In §4.3 we discuss some similar results for divisible groups and in §4.4 we study the case where the subgroup exponential hyperballean of a group is coarsely equivalent to the one of or , for some prime .
For further progress on the connection of properties of (functrorial) coarse structures on abelian (topological) groups and their algebraic (resp., topological) structure see the forthcoming papers [8, 9].
Notation and terminology
In the sequel, we adopt the standard notation in group theory and uniform space, following [11, 12] and [13], respectively. More specifically, we denote by , , , and the set of naturals, the group of integers, the group of rationals, the group of real and the cyclic group of order , respectively. The circle group will be denoted additively, as well as its subgroup , for a prime , known as the Prüffer -group.
Furthermore, we denote by [math] the identity of an abelian group , by its torsion subgroup, and by the free rank of , i.e., the cardinality of the maximal independent subset of ( can be also defined as ). For , set
[TABLE]
they are subgroup of . We say that is divisible if for every . Every abelian group has a largest divisible subgroup, denote by .
For prime let be the -rank of (defined as ) and . Finally, we denote by the set of primes .
For a set , we denote by its power set and we let .
1. Basic definitions and general constructions
A ballean is a triple where and are sets, , and is a map, with the following properties:
for every and every ; 2.
symmetry, i.e., for any and every pair of points , if and only if ; 3.
upper multiplicativity, i.e., for any , there exists a such that, for every , , where , for every and .
The set is called support of the ballean, – set of radii, and – ball of centre and radius . When the ballean structure we are considering on is clear, we often denote by its support .
This definition of ballean does not coincide with, but it is equivalent to the usual one (see [18] for details).
A ballean is called connected if, for any , there exists such that . Every ballean can be partitioned in its connected components: the connected component of a point is
[TABLE]
Call a point of such a space isolated, if is the only ball centred at , i.e., when the connected component of is . Moreover, denote by the family of all isolated points of the ballean .
We call a subset of a ballean bounded if there exists such that, for every , . The empty set is always bounded. A ballean is bounded if its support is bounded. In particular, a bounded ballean is connected.
If is a ballean, a subset of is large in if there exists such that .
If is a ballean and a subset of , one can define the subballean on induced by , where , for every and .
Let be two maps from a set to a ballean. Then and are close (and we write ) if there exists such that , for every . Let and be two balleans. Then a map is called
bornologous if for every radius there exists a radius such that for every point ; 2.
effectively proper if for every there exists a radius such that for every ; 3.
an asymorphism if it is bijective and both and are bornologous (in this case, and are asymorphic and we write ); 4.
a coarse equivalence if it is bornologous and there exists another bornologous map such that and , or, equivalently, if it is bornologous, effectively proper and is large in (in this case, and are coarsely equivalent).
Let and be two ballean structures on the same support . We say that is finer than (and we write ) if is bornologous. Moreover, we identify and () if and , i.e., is an asymorphism. If is a bounded ballean on a set , then, for every other ballean on the same support, . Moreover, the discrete ballean (i.e., the ballean such that, for every point , ) is the finest ballean on .
Denote by the number of connected components of the ballean . Note that, if is another ballean on the same support, provided that .
Let us now recall two very important examples of balleans.
Example 1.1**.**
- (a)
An extended-metric on a set is a metric that can take also the value . For every extended-metric space , define the metric ballean structure as follows: for every and , is the usual closed metric ball centred in with radius . 2. (b)
Let be a set and be an ideal on , i.e., a family of subsets of which is closed under taking finite unions and subsets. Then we define the ideal ballean, , on , where, for every and ,
[TABLE] 3. (c)
Let be a group and be an ideal on . Then is a group ideal on if and, for every , and . For an abelian group we mostly use additive notation.
If is an infinite regular cardinal, then is a group ideal on the group . The most relevant example is , the family of all finite subsets of .
For every group ideal of a group , we define the group ballean, , where for every and .
We denote the ballean shortly by and we call it finitary ballean of .
Groups endowed with balleans induced by group ideals have the following remarkable property.
Let be a homomorphism between two groups and let and be two group ideals on and respectively. Then:
is bornologous if and only if ; 2.
is effectively proper if and only if .
In particular, is bornologous whenever is a homomorphism. Moreover, is an asymorphism whenever is an isomorphism.
Let us recall the definition of the asymptotic dimension of a ballean (see [1] for a comprehensive survey). A ballean has asymptotic dimension at most , and we write , if, for every there exists a uniformly bounded cover (i.e., and there exists a radius such that for every and every ) such that, for every and every , . For example, every bounded coarse space satisfies , while, for every , , where both spaces are equipped with their metric ballean structure. The asymptotic dimension is a coarse invariant, i.e., invariant under coarse equivalence. Another important property of the asymptotic dimension is the following: if is a ballean and a subballean of , then .
Let us now present an example of an infinity-dimensional ballean (see Proposition 1.2) which will be useful later in this paper. For an infinite cardinal , we consider the Hamming space
[TABLE]
endowed with the metric , for every , and denote by the space with deleted the zero function. In the sequel, we identify with the set , where every function can be identified with its support.
Proposition 1.2**.**
For every infinite cardinal , .
Proof.
It is enough to check that . To see that , we take an arbitrary , and we claim that there exists a copy of in . That shows . Let be a partition of in infinite subsets. Enumerate and define, for every and every , .
We define a map as follows: for every ,
[TABLE]
We claim that is an isometry onto its image. In fact, for every ,
[TABLE]
which shows the desired property. ∎
1.1. Some categorical constructions
Let be a family of balleans. Let and , for every , be the projection maps. We denote the subset of by , where , for every index . The product ballean structure on can be described as follows: this is the ballean structure , where, for each and each , we put
[TABLE]
Let be a family of balleans. Define their coproduct as the ballean , where , , and
[TABLE]
where is the canonical inclusion, , and .
If is a ballean with finitely many connected components, then coincides with the coproduct of its connected components. This may fail when has infinitely many connected components, see Example 1.9.
Remark 1.3**.**
If is an asymorphism, then retracted to is a bijections between and (so trivially yields ). Moreover, determines a bijection between the family of non-trivial connected components of and its counterpart in , so one can index both families with the same index set and write and , assuming without loss of generality that and the restriction of determines asymorphisms . All these are only necessary conditions for (i.e., the bare fact that and for all need not imply , see Example 1.9). Indeed, imposes a ``uniform coarseness" of the asymorphisms .
Moreover, if is finite, then they are indeed sufficient conditions, since, in that case, both and coincide with the coproducts of their connected components.
Fact 1.4**.**
Let be a coarse equivalence. Then . Moreover, for every , is bounded if and only if is bounded.
1.2. Some examples of ballean classes: thin and cellular balleans
Let be a ballean. A subset of is thin if, for every , there exists a bounded subset such that , for every . A ballean is thin if its whole support is thin.
Let be an ideal on . The ideal ballean is connected if and only if is a cover or, equivalently, .
Fact 1.5**.**
Let and be two non-empty sets, and be two ideals of and , respectively, and be a map. Then is an asymorphism between and if and only if is a bijection such that and , for every and .
Corollary 1.6**.**
Let and be two sets endowed with the ideal ballean structures induced by finite subsets. Then and are asymorphic if and only if .
Among all characterisations of thinness (for example, see [6, 18]), let us remind the following.
Proposition 1.7**.**
A connected ballean is thin if and only if , where is the ideal of bounded subsets of .
The notion of thinnes may seem too restrictive. In fact, one can easily see that a non-connected ballean is thin if and only if all but one connected components are trivial and the non-trivial one is thin. Since the balleans we are considering in this paper are non-connected, we define the following class. A ballean is weakly thin if every connected component is thin.
An important class of balleans is defined as follows. For a ballean , , and , we let
[TABLE]
Definition 1.8**.**
The triple is a ballean called the cellularization of . The ballean is said to be cellular if .
Cellular balleans are precisely those with asymptotic dimension 0. Thin balleans and, in particular, bounded balleans are cellular. Moreover, if a weakly thin ballean has only a finite number of connected components, it is cellular. However, this property doesn't hold for weakly thin balleans with infinite number of connected components (see Example 1.9).
Example 1.9**.**
Consider the ballean , endowed with the natural extended metric defined as follows: if belong to the same component , then , if belong to distinct components, we put . Then and thus it is not cellular, although it is weakly thin. Finally, the ballean is cellular and thus and are not coarsely equivalent (and, in particular, not asymorphic).
2. The exponential and the logarithmic hyperballeans
2.1. The exponential hyperballean
Recall the following definition from [6].
Definition 2.1**.**
For a ballean , we consider the hyperballean , where
[TABLE]
for every and every .
Note that, if and are two asymorphic balleans, then .
We use also the subballean of , where is the family of all non-empty bounded subsets of and is the restriction of to . This ballean was already defined in [17].
It is trivial that, for every ballean ,
[TABLE]
(in fact the subballean of whose support is the family of all singletons of is asymorphic to , according to [6]). The equality is not available in general and may strongly fail (see [19]). However, that equality is true for asymptotic dimension [math], as we will show in Proposition 2.3.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be a ballean. Let and be an arbitrary element of and of , respectively. Then
[TABLE]
Hence, in particular,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We prove (2) by induction. The base step is trivial. Suppose that (2) holds for some and let . There exists such that and so, by using the inductive hypothesis,
[TABLE]
from which the claim follows. ∎
Proposition 2.3**.**
If a ballean is cellular, then is cellular.
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary radius and let be a radius such that , for every . Then, by using Lemma 2.2, for every ,
[TABLE]
∎
In this paper we are mostly interested in some special hyperballeans, namely , where is a group. The following trivial fact will be used in the sequel.
Fact 2.4**.**
Let be a group and be its identity. Then every ball of centred in is finite. Hence, for every subset of such that and every finite subset of , the ball is finite.
Proof.
It is enough to note that, for every finite subset of , if , then . The second statement follows, since is upper multiplicative. ∎
2.2. The logarithmic hyperballean
Let us now introduce another ballean structure on , where is a group.
Definition 2.5**.**
For a group , we define a function as follows. If are two non-empty subsets which are in distinct connected components of then . Otherwise, we define
[TABLE]
and put
[TABLE]
where the base of the logarithm is any value strictly greater than .
The next claim is not hard to check, yet we give an argument for the sake of completeness.
Claim 2.6**.**
The function is an extended metric. Moreover, changing the base of the logarithm leads to equivalent extended metrics.
Proof.
In fact, the only non-trivial property is the triangular inequality. Fix then three non-empty subsets of such that and . Pick four finite subsets such that
- (a)
, 2. (b)
, 3. (c)
, 4. (d)
and , 5. (e)
and .
In particular and, similarly, . Since both and , this proves the first part of the claim. The last part is trivial. ∎
Finally we define the logarithmic hyperballean as the metric ballean induced by , namely
[TABLE]
The extended metric is invariant under left and right actions of on , i.e., the maps and , for every and every .
Furthermore, if and are two isomorphic groups, then .
Remark 2.7**.**
- (a)
Clearly, the connected components of and coincide. 2. (b)
For every group , is finer than . In fact, if two subsets and of satisfy for some finite subset , then . 3. (c)
If is infinite, then is strictly finer than . First of all, note that, for every two distinct singletons and of , and thus . However, a subset of such that , for every , must satisfy , which is not a radius of , since is infinite. 4. (d)
If is abelian, then the can also be defined by the extended-metric , where, for every two non-empty subsets ,
[TABLE]
if are in the same connected component of , and , otherwise.
Remark 2.8**.**
Let be a group of cardinality . Recall that is the family of all non-empty bounded subset of , i.e., all finite subsets of . We consider two ballean structure on : the first one is the subballean structure , while the second one is given by the identification of with , i.e., the metric ballean induced by , where, for every , .
We claim that is finer than and, moreover, if is infinite, it is strictly finer. Let and such that . Fix two elements and and define
[TABLE]
Then and
[TABLE]
which implies the first part of the statement. Suppose now that is infinite. Then, for every , there exists and such that and . Then , while . Since can be chosen arbitrarily, is strictly finer than .
Question 2.9**.**
- (a)
For a countable group , are and asymorphic? Coarsely equivalent? 2. (b)
If the answer to item (a) is affirmative then, if and are countable groups, are and asymorphic? In particular, what does it happen if and is the countable group of exponent 2?
3. The subgroup hyperballeans and
For every group , we denote by the lattice of all subgroups of . In this paper we focus on the following subballeans of and :
the subgroup exponential hyperballeans ; and 2.
the subgroup logarithmic hyperballeans .
First of all, we want to give a different and useful characterisation of the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean , where is a group, and, in order to do that, we need the following result.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a group and let be subgroups of such that for some subset of . Then .
Proof.
We split the proof in three cases.
Case 1. Assume that . Given any , we pick such that . Then and . This proves that .
Case 2. Assume that . Let and note that our assumption provides a partition . Let and note that:
(i) ; (ii) ; (iii) (as when ).
By (i) and our blanket assumption , , so by (iii) we can apply Case 1 to and to claim . Now (ii) allows us to conclude that .
Case 3. In the general case let . Then obviously, and . By case 2, applied to and we have . Since obviously , this yields . ∎
Definition 3.2**.**
We recall that two subgroups of a group are commensurable if the indices and are finite.
By Lemma 3.1 and Remark 2.7(a), two subgroups and of are in the same connected component of (, equivalently) if and only if and are commensurable.
Moreover, Lemma 3.1 also implies a different characterization of , which is much more manageable. Namely, for every group and every pair of subgroups and of , define
[TABLE]
which is an extended metric on . By Lemma 3.1, the ballean structure on induced by coincides with .
Thanks to the previous characterisation of the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean, we can provide an example of a group such that has some infinite ball (see Example 3.30).
Remark 3.3**.**
Fix . We want to take a closer look at the structure of . First of all note that two commensurable subgroups and of have same free rank. Moreover, every subgroup of is commensurable with a pure subgroup of , namely its saturation defined by
[TABLE]
(denoted also by by some authors; recall that a subgroup of an abelian group is pure, whenever for every [pure subgroups of split as direct summands]). For every , is commensurable with if and only if . Then has a countable number of connected components. Namely, they are:
- •
,
- •
,
- •
for every , a countable number of connected components asymorphic to the subballean of which is asymorphic to the subballean of .
In particular, by Remark 1.3, for every , neither , nor .
Note that has two connected components, while , as we will prove in Proposition 3.34.
3.1. : the chase for isolated points of and
According to Remark 2.7(a), the isolated points of and coincide. We denote this set of common isolated points by .
In this subsection we show how the existence of isolated points is related to a well-known algebraic property, such as divisibility.
Let us recall, that a divisible subgroup of an abelian group always splits, i.e., there exists another subgroup of such that . The class of divisible groups is stable under taking quotients, products and direct sums. Examples of divisible groups are and, for every prime , the Prüffer -group (while non-trivial finite groups are never divisible). As the following folklore fact shows, every divisible group is a direct sum of these. In other words, divisible abelian groups are completely characterised by their ranks:
Fact 3.4**.**
[11]* If is a divisible abelian group, then*
[TABLE]
A group is called reduced if , in other words, the biggest divisible subgroup of is .
The equivalence of (a) and (b) in the following claim is folklore, yet we give a proof for the sake of completeness.
Claim 3.5**.**
For an abelian group the following are equivalent:
- (a)
* is divisible;* 2. (b)
* has no proper subgroups of finite index;* 3. (c)
.
Proof.
(a) (b) It suffices to note that if is a proper subgroup of of finite index, then the quotient is non-trivial finite group, so cannot be divisible, while divisibility is preserved under taking quotients.
(b) (a) If is not divisible, then for some prime . Hence, is a non-trivial abelian group of exponent , i.e., a vector space over . Then admits a non-zero homomorphism , which is necessarily surjective, so provides a quotient of isomorphic to .
Finally, (b) and (c) are obviously equivalent. ∎
Proposition 3.6**.**
For a subgroup of an abelian group the following are equivalent:
- (a)
; 2. (b)
* is divisible and , where is a torsion-free subgroup of .* 3. (c)
* and is divisible;*
Proof.
(b)(a) If , with divisible and torsion-free, then has no proper subgroup of finite index (Claim 3.5). So if is a subgroup of commensurable with , then , i.e., . Since is divisible, this gives , for some subgroup of . As and are commensurable, is finite. Since is torsion-free, this yields , i.e., . Thus, .
(a)(b) Now assume that . Then has no proper subgroups of finite index, so is divisible, by Claim 3.5. Then there exists a subgroup of such that . If were a non-zero torsion element of , then is commensurable with , so our hypothesis implies that . This proves that is torsion-free.
Finally, the equivalence (b)(c) is trivial. ∎
Corollary 3.7**.**
The following are equivalent for an abelian group :
- (a)
; 2. (b)
* is torsion-free;* 3. (c)
; 4. (d)
.
Proof.
(a) (b) Assume that and pick . Then , where is a torsion-free subgroup of . As , one has also , and one can arrange to have a subgroup of , so is torsion-free.
(b) (c) (d) (a) are obvious (the second one in view of Proposition 3.6). ∎
In particular, one can easily isolate the following sufficient conditions for the (non-)existence of isolated points:
Corollary 3.8**.**
For an abelian group one has:
- (a)
* *so whenever is divisible; 2. (b)
if is reduced, then if and only if is not torsion-free; otherwise, is a singleton.
Proof.
(a) follows from Proposition 3.6(c).
(b) If is reduced, then , so precisely when , according to the above corollary. The last assertion follows from Corollary 3.7. ∎
Now we provide a sharper result that complements the previous corollaries which characterized when . More precisely, we show that the size of is completely determined by the free-rank as follows:
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let be an abelian group with i.e., . Then:
- (a)
* has size 1 *more precisely, if and only if , i.e., is torsion; 2. (b)
* has size 2 *more precisely, if and only if , i.e., with torsion-free; 3. (c)
* if and only if (then with ); and* 4. (d)
* is uncountable *more precisely, if and only if .
Proof.
(a), (b) and (c) follow from the above corollaries and the fact that has countably many divisible subgroups when . Similar arguments work for (d). ∎
Proposition 3.9, along with Remark 1.3, provides a large series of non-asymorphic pairs of spaces, like:
[TABLE]
and the same for the corresponding subgroup logarithmic hyperballeans.
In the next remark we discuss further some other immediate consequences of the above results concerning (only) the set isolated points of an abelian group on the group structure of .
Remark 3.10**.**
- (a)
Let be a virtually divisible abelian group and be a divisible abelian group. Then is divisible, provided that either or . In fact, since is non-empty, must be torsion-free, by Corollary 3.7. On the other hand, must be finite (hence, torsion), since be a virtually divisible. Thus, is divisible. 2. (b)
Let be a divisible abelian group and be a finitely generated abelian group such that or . Then is torsion and is free. In fact, assume first of all that both and are non-trivial. By Corollary 3.8, , so as well. Since is reduced, this fact implies (by the same corollary) that is torsion-free. Hence , for some , so . This yileds . Since is divisbile, Proposition 3.9 applies to entail that must be torsion. 3. (c)
Let be a divisible torsion-free abelian group. Then Proposition 3.9 implies that , provided that or . 4. (d)
Under the assumption of the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, if are divisible torsion-free abelian group such that at least one of them has infinite rank, then the following statements are equivalent:
- (d1)
;
- (d2)
;
- (d3)
;
- (d4)
;
- (d5)
.
The implications (d5) (d1) (d3) and (d5) (d2) (d3) are trivial and were already discussed. Implication (d3) (d4) follows from Proposition 3.9, in particular the equality , and GCH. The implication (d4) (d5) follows from the fact that divisible torsion-free abelian groups are determined by their free-rank up to isomorphism (see Fact 3.4).
The assertions in Remark 3.10(c) and (d) are examples of what we call ``rigidity results'', to which Section 4 is devoted. It is trivial that, if and are two isomorphic groups, then (more precisely, ), and . The converse implication is not true (Corollaries 3.13 and 3.19). A rigidity result is a list of conditions on balleans and ( and ), where and are two groups, which imply that , provided that (, respectively). We mention here that there is another, more common meaning of rigidity in the coarse context (see [20]).
3.2. The subgroup exponential hyperballean
First of all, we provide some basic, although very important, examples of . For example, if is a finite group, then both and are bounded. In particular, is bounded as well.
Proposition 3.11**.**
Let be one of the groups and for some prime . Then
- (a)
all balls in are finite; 2. (b)
* has two connected components, of which one is a singleton *namely, , when , otherwise ; 3. (c)
* is thin and thus since it is cellular.*
Proof.
Items (a) and (b) are trivial.
(c) Case . To show that is thin take an arbitrary finite subset of and choose so that . Pick . We claim that . We carry out the proof for , obviously, this implies the general case.
Consider the quotient map and notice that the subset of contains no non-trivial subgroups, by the assumption . Pick , then , so in , hence . Thus, for some multiple of . Since , with , the previous argument implies . Therefore, .
Case . We consider now the group , where is a prime. Denote by the subgroup of of order , take an arbitrary finite subset of and choose so that . Then for each . ∎
Remark 3.12**.**
Let be an arbitrary group. According to Fact 2.4, all balls in centered at are finite. Nevertheless, this is not true for all balls of . One can find examples of abelian groups such that some balls in centred at are infinite. For example, let , where , for every . For every , denote by the element of such that and, for every , . Then, for every , and thus this ball contains infinitely many elements.
Corollary 3.13**.**
* and are asymorphic, for every prime .*
Proof.
By Proposition 3.11(b), both and have two connected components, namely,
[TABLE]
Moreover, . Since and are thin, in particular, also and are thin. Hence, Proposition 1.7 implies that and coincide with the ideal balleans associated to the ideals of all their bounded subsets, i.e., finite subsets, namely
[TABLE]
where and .
Fix a bijecton such that . We claim that is an asymorphism. We can apply Remark 1.3 and the claim follows once we prove that both and are asymorphisms. While the first restriction is trivially an asymorphism, Fact 1.5 and (3) imply that also the second one is an asymorphism. ∎
In contrast to , for is not weakly thin, and, in particular, it is not thin. To see that , , has a non-thin connected component, we put and note that for each subgroup of .
Question 3.14**.**
Is cellular for every ?
For every , denote by the subballean of whose support is the family of rectangular subgroups of , i.e., . Then, for every , is cellular. In fact, it is trivial that and products of cellular balleans are cellular.
For every locally finite group (i.e., every finitely generated subgroup of is finite), the ballean is cellular, equivalently, , so and are cellular (Proposition 2.3).
Question 3.15**.**
Is the ballean cellular for an arbitrary group ?
Theorem 3.16**.**
Let . Then if and only if .
Proof.
We have already proved that .
Now suppose that . Fix, by contradiction, an asymorphism . As recalled in Remark 1.3, induces asymorphisms between the connected components of those two balleans. Because of Remark 3.3, one of those restrictions is an asymorphism between and . However, this is an absurd, since the first ballean is thin, while the second one has not that property. ∎
Question 3.17**.**
Is it true that if and only if ?
3.3. The subgroup logarithmic hyperballean and its asymptotic dimension
Proposition 3.18**.**
For every prime , is asymorphic to the coproduct of and a singleton.
Proof.
It is easy to check that the subspace of all finite subgroups of is isometric to with the metric , for every . ∎
Corollary 3.19**.**
For every pair of prime numbers , . Moreover,
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.20**.**
.
Proof.
For distinct primes , we put and let . In the sequel we denote the -tuples
[TABLE]
by , and the -tuple by .
Equip with the taxi driver metric , defined by
[TABLE]
for every pair .
We prove below that is an asymorphism. Since , this asymorphism will provide subballeans of arbitrary finite asymptotic dimension of , hence .
Consider now a second metric on , namely the logarithmic metric , induced from through the bijection . More precisely,
[TABLE]
for any pair . We can assume without loss of generality that are greater or equal than the base of the logarithm. We claim that those two metrics induce the same ballean structures on .
First of all, we want to prove that
[TABLE]
For , let . Then, for , , hence
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Hence, (4) can be obtained by combining (5) and (6).
We are left with the proof of . Fix and consider a pair with Let By our assumption, . Then
[TABLE]
witnessing that .
Conversely, let and fix a pair with . We can assume without loss of generality that that , where . Hence, the first case occurs in (4).
Split , with and . Clearly, due to our assumption (if we set below). Hence
[TABLE]
equivalently,
[TABLE]
In particular, (7) implies , for every , so
[TABLE]
since as is greater or equal than the base of the logarithm. Since, for every ,
[TABLE]
the inequalities (8) and (9) imply that .
Hence, . This proves the equality . ∎
In particular, Corollary 3.19 and Theorem 3.20 imply that is not even coarsely equivalent to . Note the difference with Corollary 3.13.
As we have already noticed, for , and are not asymorphic because has two connected components but infinitely (countably) many. It will be nice to answer the following less obvious question:
Question 3.21**.**
Are and asymorphic for all distinct ?
In order to characterise the abelian groups with we need to rule out the groups that are not finitely layered. For a group and let
[TABLE]
(so that ). Note that if is abelian, then is a subgroup of (unlike ). Call layerly finite, if the set is finite for every (or equivalently, when is finite for each ).
Theorem 3.22**.**
Let be an abelian group, and be a prime number. If the subgroup is infinite then .
Proof.
We take a subgroup of which is a direct sum of copies of , denote by the set of all subgroups of of the from , where is a finite subset of . Then the correspondence defines an asymorphism between and the Hamming space . According to Proposition 1.2, . Therefore, . This yields . ∎
Corollary 3.23**.**
Let be an abelian group with . Then is torsion and layerly finite.
Proof.
By and by Theorem 3.20, is a torsion group. By Theorem 3.22, is layerly finite. ∎
We can characterise now the abelian groups such that as the reduced torsion finitely layered abelian groups. For a prime we denote by the Sylow -subgroup of , i.e., is the maximal -subgroup of .
Theorem 3.24**.**
For an abelian group , if and only if is a torsion group and for every prime the Sylow -subgroup of is finite.
Proof.
By Theorem 3.20 and Corollary 3.23, is a torsion layerly finite group. If some is infinite then has a subgroup isomorphic to but .
We assume that each is finite and show that is cellular. Let . We take an arbitrary and put . If and then . It follows that , where . ∎
Now we show that for every one can easily build a (divisible) abelian group with
[TABLE]
Example 3.25**.**
(a) For distinct primes consider the group . Then
[TABLE]
so in particular . For a proof one has to use the fact that the lattice is isomorphic to the direct product of the lattices since every subgroup of has the form
[TABLE]
(b) More generally, for a set of primes let . Then . Indeed, for finite this follows from (a). Otherwise, consider subsets with and apply again (a) to the subgroup to deduce and conclude .
Remark 3.26**.**
Let be an abelian group, . If then is torsion and there exist distinct primes , , a layerly finite subgroup of which is a direct sum of cyclic subgroups, such that
[TABLE]
Indeed, by Corollary 3.23, is torsion and finitely layered. Hence, its maximal divisible subgroup has . So splits as in (10). Furthermore, letting , one may have , but it is possible to split , where is a finite group, such that, with , one has
[TABLE]
More precise results depend on the following:
Problem 3.27**.**
Compute .
Note that contains, as a subspace, the family of all proper subgroups of the form , where is a proper subgroup of for . Since ,
[TABLE]
We do not state in Remark 3.26 that the converse implication is true. More precisely, if is as in Remark 3.26 with primes not necessarily distinct, we cannot claim that is finite with . In case occurs for all primes (see Remark 3.29), we can claim that entails that the primes are pairwise distinct (and so, ).
Proposition 3.28**.**
Let be a -group. Consider the subballean of whose support is the family of all cyclic subgroups of . Then . Moreover, if and only if has finite exponent.
Proof.
We claim that is asymorphic to a tree, which implies that (see [20, Proosition 9.8]). Define a graph having as set of vertices and, for , the pair is an edge if and only if and , or and . Then is trivially asymorphic to . Obviously, is also a partially ordered set, where the order is defined by the inclusion of subgroups. We want to show that is actually a tree. Consider such that . Let . Since , , and , for some . If , then since . Similarly, if , then . Since the set of vertices below this fixed vertex is finite, hence it is well-ordered. This shows that the partially ordered set is a tree with root the trivial subgroup of and height equal to the (logarithm of the) exponent of , hence at most .
Finally, if and only if is bounded and this is equivalent to having finite exponent. ∎
For we proved in Proposition 3.28. However, , by (11).
Let us conclude our discussion about Remark 3.26 with a final remark towards an answer to the question whether .
Remark 3.29**.**
Unlike the group , with primes , the group has many subgroups, actually many divisible subgroups isomorphic to .
One can easily see that has three types of subgroups:
- (i)
finite subgroups; 2. (ii)
infinite proper divisible subgroups, they are all isomorphic to ; 3. (iii)
infinite proper non-divisible subgroups, they are all isomorphic to .
There are countably many finite subgroups and many subgroups of each type (ii) and (iii).
We conjecture that .
Example 3.30**.**
A Tarskii monster of exponent , where is a prime, is an infinite countable group whose proper subgroups are cyclic and have order . Olshanskii [14] built Tarskii monsters for every prime .
Let be a Tarskii monster of exponent , where is a suitable prime. Since every proper subgroup is finite, then , where can be endowed both with the subgroup exponential hyperballean structure and with the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean structure.
- (a)
First of all, we focus on the subgroup exponential ballean . Fact 2.4 implies that every ball centered in a proper subgroup of is finite. We are not aware whether is thin. Since , if is thin, then , where . 2. (b)
We now consider . The definition of implies that the ball centred at the identity of radius contains all proper subgroups of the group, which are infinitely many. Hence, , where is the family of all proper subgroups of , and is bounded. In particular, is thin and [math]-dimensional.
Remark 3.31**.**
For every group , there is a natural map that sends every element in the subgroup . (One may consider also the co-restriction of , where is the family of all cyclic subgroups of .) The cardinalities of its fibres have a uniform bound (i.e., has uniformly bounded fibres) if and only if there is an upper bound for the size of of all finite cyclic subgroups of (e.g., the groups of finite exponent as well as torsion-free groups have this property). Hence, one might think that could be a coarse embedding if is endowed with a subgroup hyperballean structure. For example, if is finite, then is trivially a coarse equivalence. However, if is infinite this may fail even in simple cases. For the map is surjective, with , yet and ; hence is not a coarse equivalence in both cases.
If is infinite and has finite exponent , then is not proper. In fact, every cyclic subgroup belongs to the ball in centred in with radius (see also Example 3.30) and those subgroups are infinitely many. Hence, is unbounded in , i.e., infinite.
3.4.
Definition 3.32**.**
Let be a -space with action , , and let be a group ideal on . The ballean is defined as , where for all , .
By [15, Theorem 1], every ballean with support is asymorphic to under appropriate choice of as a subgroup of the group of all permutations of and a group ideal .
Note that the finitary ballean on a group is precisely with the action of on by left translations.
For , we introduce a -*hyperballean * as , where
[TABLE]
for every and every . Since acts by bijections, if and are two non-empty subsets of , then
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.33**.**
For every ballean , . Moreover, the following properties are equivalent:
- (a)
; 2. (b)
each ball in around a singleton consists of sigletons; 3. (c)
* is discrete.*
Proof.
Fix a radius and assume, without loss of generality, that it satisfies . Then, for every non-empty subset of , if , then for some . Thus
[TABLE]
which implies that .
The implications (b)(c)(a) are trivial. Suppose now that . Then, for every and every , , provided that , because of (12). ∎
Proposition 3.34**.**
For an infinite group , .
Proof.
Let be a thin subset of such that , whose existence is proved in [4].
Since is a thin subset of , Proposition 1.7 implies that coincides with the ideal ballean , where is the ideal of all bounded subsets of (i.e., all finite subsets of ). By [6, Proposition 4.1] the equivalence relation , where , if and only if is finite, is precisely the equivalence relation of belonging to the same connected component in . Hence, each connected component of has cardinality precisely and thus there are such connected components. Finally, since ,
[TABLE]
∎
Example 3.35**.**
Denote by the group of all permutations of . Let us take the ballean and show that has only two connected components: the family of all non-empty finite subsets of and the family of all infinite ones.
For any two non-empty finite subset of and each , , let be the transposition with support , i.e., , and . Then with respect to .
We take an arbitrary infinite subset of , partition into infinite subsets , and partition so that , . Then we choose two permutations of so that , and put . Then .
In contrast to , the ballean has countably many connected components:
, , , , and .
Since non-trivial cosets of a subgroup are never subgroups, the subballean is trivial and so irrelevant for the purpose of this paper.
4. Rigidity results
As we have already mentioned (see comments on Remark 3.10), if two groups and are isomorphic, then and . However, the converse is not true in general (for example, and ). In this section we want to determine conditions that ensures that the opposite implication holds.
Let us start with some technical results which hold for the subgroup hyperballeans and .
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be a ballean.
- (a)
If is asymorphic to or to , then has two connected components. Moreover, one connected component is a singleton, while the other one is infinite and unbounded. 2. (b)
If is coarsely equivalent to or to , then has two connected components. Moreover, one connected component is bounded, while the other one is unbounded.
Proof.
The proof is an application of Fact 1.4, Remark 3.3 and Proposition 3.11(b). ∎
An infinite group is said to be quasi-finite if every proper subgroup is finite. Example of quasi-finite groups are the Prüffer -groups and the Tarskii monsters (see Example 3.30). Moreover, if an abelian group is quasi-finite, then it is isomorphic to Prüffer -group for some prime .
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let be a group. Suppose that (, equivalently) has precisely two connected components, one of them is a singleton and the other one is infinite. Then must be infinite. Moreover:
- (a)
if contains an element of infinite order then ; 2. (b)
if is a torsion group then is quasi-finite.
Proof.
The first statement is trivial, since, otherwise, and would be bounded.
(a) Let be element of infinite order of . Then is infinite, and thus is infinite (as it contains the subgroups of the form , where ), while . Since each infinite subgroup of is, in particular, large in , it has finite index and, by Fedorov's theorem [10], .
(b) Since is torsion, for every , is a finite subgroup and thus belongs to the connected component . Hence, the connected component of is a singleton and every proper subgroup is finite. ∎
4.1. Rigidity results on the subgroup exponential hyperballean
Corollary 4.3**.**
If a group contains an element of infinite order, then if and only if .
Proof.
Lemma 4.1(a) implies that has two connected components, one is infinite and the other one is just a singleton. Hence the conclusion follows from 4.2(a). ∎
Theorem 4.4**.**
For an abelian group , if and only if either or , for some is prime.
Proof.
The ``if part'' of the statement is proved in Corollary 3.13.
Conversely, let us divide the proof in two cases. If is torsion, then Lemmas 4.1(a) and 4.2(b) imply that every proper subgroup of is finite. Hence, since is abelian, , for some prime . Otherwise, there exists and element of infinite order and then the claim follows from Corollary 4.3. ∎
Can we relax the hypothesis of Theorem 4.4? Namely, we wonder whether the request of being abelian can be relaxed or not. Let us state it as a question.
Question 4.5**.**
Let be a torsion group such that and are asymorphic. Is for some prime ?
An affirmative answer to the question of Example 3.30, along with a proof similar to that of Corollary 3.13, would show that , for a Tarskii monster . This would provide a negative answer to Question 4.5.
4.2. Rigidity results on the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean
Theorem 4.6**.**
Let be a group and be a prime.
- (a)
* if and only if ;* 2. (b)
* if and only if for some prime .*
Proof.
(a) Assume that is asymorphic to . If has an element of infinite order then , by Lemma 4.1(a) and Proposition 4.2(a). Suppose now, by contradiction, that is a torsion group. By Proposition 4.2(b), is quasi-finite. We show that is layerly finite. If are subgroup of order then , so . If some is infinite then has an infinite ball of radius , but each ball in is finite. By [3], either has a subgroup or is the subdirect product of finite groups. Since this implies the existence of proper (normal) subgroups of finite index and is quasi-finite, the second case is impossible. So we are left with . Since is infinite and is quasi-finite, . This contradicts the conjunction of Corollary 3.19 & Theorem 3.20.
(b) Corollary 3.19 implies that for every pair of primes and . Conversely, suppose that . If, by contradiction, contains an element of infinite order, then , by Proposition 4.2(a). This contradicts established in Corollary 3.19 and Theorem 3.20. Hence is torsion. Using Proposition 4.2(b) as above, we conclude that is quasi-finite and layerly finite, and consequently, for some prime . ∎
Note that in Theorem 4.6 we don't require that the group is abelian.
4.3. Rigidity results and questions on divisible and finitely generated abelian groups
We pointed out in §3.1 that divisibility of a group is related to some strong property of its hyperballean. So it is natural to ask if we can find some rigidity result in this setting.
Lemma 4.7**.**
For no cardinal , has a connected component asymorphic to .
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary subgroup of and suppose that is not divisible since, otherwise, . Since is not divisible, there exists such that . Note that, this is equivalent to . Hence, in particular, we can construct a chain of subgroups as follows:
[TABLE]
Note that this chain is asymorphic to , which is not asymorphic to and this observation concludes the proof. ∎
Proposition 4.8**.**
Let and be two divisible abelian groups. Then is torsion-free if and only if is torsion-free, provided that .
Proof.
Suppose that is torsion-free. Let have torsion. Then, by Fact 3.4,
[TABLE]
where is a prime and . Define . Then . As is torsion-free, and there is no connected component asymorphic to , by Lemma 4.7. ∎
Moreover, we can prove a stronger version of Remark 3.10(c) and (d).
Corollary 4.9**.**
Let be a divisible abelian group.
- (a)
Then if and only if . 2. (b)
Suppose that is an infinite cardinal. Then, under the assumption of the Generalised Continuum Hypothesis, if and only if .
Proof.
Proposition 4.8 implies that is torsion-free, provided or and thus we can apply Remark 3.10 to prove both claims. ∎
Question 4.10**.**
Let be an abelian group and be a divisible abelian group. Is it true that is divisible, provided that ?
Let and be as in Question 4.10. Then for some subgroup of . By Corollary 3.8, . This, along with Corollary 3.7, implies .
Question 4.11**.**
Let be an abelian group such that . Is it true that , provided that either or ?
Question 4.12**.**
Is it true that ?
Question 4.13**.**
Is it true that or ?
Question 4.14**.**
Let be an abelian group and be a finitely generated abelian group. Suppose that . Is it true that is finitely generated?
Note that , where is finitely generated and it is not divisible, while is not finitely generated, although it is divisible. This is why we formulate Questions 4.10 and 4.14 only for the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean
4.4. Results on coarsely equivalent subgroup exponential hyperballeans
Lemma 4.15**.**
Let and be two groups.
- (a)
If there exist two homomorphisms and such that and , then is a coarse equivalence, with coarse inverse , and is a coarse equivalence, with inverse . 2. (b)
Let be a finite normal subgroup of . Then the quotient map is a coarse equivalence and, moreover, is a coarse equivalence.
Proof.
(a) Note that is trivially a coarse equivalence. Moreover, it is easy to check that is a coarse equivalence with inverse (see also [6]). Since both and are homomorphisms, the restrictions and are well-defined and thus they are coarse equivalences.
(b) Since is a homomorphism, is coarse and also a coarse equivalence, since preimages of finite subsets are finite (see Example 1.1(c)). In particular,
[TABLE]
which is well-defined, is coarse. Moreover, defined by the law , where , is coarse and a coarse inverse of . ∎
Theorem 4.16**.**
Let a group contains an element of infinite order. Then and are coarsely equivalent if and only if has a finite normal subgroup such that .
Proof.
() Assume that and are coarsely equivalent. Lemma 4.1(b) implies that has two connected components: one is unbounded (hence, infinite) and one is bounded. Let us see that the connected component of is the bounded one. To prove that is bounded it is enough to observe that it does not contain the infinite subgroup as well as its infinitely many proper subgroups , where . Since this family is certainly unbounded in , must be the bounded component. Consequently, is finite being contained into a ball around (see Fact 2.4).
Since contains all finite order elements , this will imply that the set of all the elements of finite order of is finite. By Ditsmans lemma [5], is a subgroup. Moreover, since conjugacy doesn't change the order of an element, is normal in . Then is torsion free.
Since is coarsely equivalent to (Lemma 4.15) and thus to , in particular, we can reapply the usual argument and prove that every proper subgroup of is large in and so is finite. By Federov's theorem, is isomorphic to .
() On the other hand, if is finite and then , and is large in , so and are coarsely equivalent. ∎
Lemma 4.17**.**
Let be a group.
- (a)
if is a subgroup of of finite index, then has only finitely many subgroups containing ; 2. (b)
if is a family of subgroups of stable under finite intersections, and there exists such that for every , then is finite.
Proof.
(a) Let be the core of in (i.e., the biggest normal subgroup of which is contained in ), which has still finite index in . Consider the map . Then induces a bijection between the family of subgroups of containing and the one of the subgroups of . Since the latter is finite, we are done.
(b) Assume for contradiction that has infinitely many pairwise distinct members . Using the stability of under finite intersections, we can replace by the intersection in order to obtain a decreasing chain of members of . As for every , this chain stabilizes at some stage . Therefore all subgroups contain . This contradicts (a). ∎
Theorem 4.18**.**
For an abelian group , and are coarsely equivalent if and only if there exists a finite subgroup of such that either or , for some prime .
Proof.
Assume that and are coarsely equivalent. If has an element of infinite order then we apply Theorem 4.16. Otherwise, suppose that is a torsion group. Since and are coarsely equivalent, we deduce from Lemma 4.1, that has two connected components and one of them is bounded, while the other one is unbounded. Since is torsion, Fact 2.4 implies that must be unbounded. Hence, the family of all finite index subgroups of satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 4.17(b) and thus is finite and, in particular, it has a minimum element . Then is finite and is quasi-finite and thus, since is abelian, , for some prime . Hence the claim follows. ∎
We cannot state similar results for the subgroup logarithmic hyperballean, since the balls centred at can have infinitely many elements (see Example 3.30).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A. Dranishnikov, G. Bell, Asymptotic dimension , Topology and its Applications Volume 155, Issue 12, 2008, 1265-1296.
- 2[2] M. Cencelj, J. Dydak, A. Vavpetič, Large scale versus small scale , Recent Progress in General Topology III, 165-203
- 3[3] S. Chernikov, Infinite layerly finite groups , Mat. Sb. 22 (1948), 101–133.
- 4[4] C. Chou, On the size of the set of left invariant means on a semigroup , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (1969), 199–205.
- 5[5] A. Ditsman, On p 𝑝 p -groups , DAN SSSR, 15 (1937), 71–76.
- 6[6] D. Dikranjan, I. Protasov, K. Protasova, N. Zava, Balleans, hyperballeans and ideals , Appl. Top., to appear.
- 7[7] D. Dikranjan, N. Zava, Some categorical aspects of coarse spaces and balleans , Topology Appl., 225 (2017), 164–194.
- 8[8] D. Dikranjan, N. Zava, Categories of coarse groups: quasi-homomorphisms and functorial coarse structures , submitted.
