D-sets in Arbitrary Semigroup
Surajit Biswas, Bedanta Bose, Sourav Kanti Patra

TL;DR
This paper introduces the concept of D-sets in arbitrary semigroups, explores their properties, and establishes their behavior under Cartesian products and in relation to C-sets in commutative cases.
Contribution
It defines D-sets in general semigroups and proves their stability under Cartesian products and their relation to C-sets in commutative semigroups.
Findings
Cartesian product of finitely many D-sets is a D-set
Partial results for infinite Cartesian products of D-sets
D-sets in commutative semigroups are C-sets
Abstract
We define the notion of -set in an arbitrary semigroup, and with some mild restrictions we establish its dynamical and combinatorial characterizations. Assuming a weak form of cancellation in semigroups we have shown that the Cartesian product of finitely many -sets is a -set. A similar partial result has been proved for Cartesian product of infinitely many -sets. Finally, in a commutative semigroup we deduce that -sets (with respect to a F{\o}lner net) are -sets.
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.
D- Sets in Arbitrary Semigroup
Surajit Biswas
Ramakrishna Mission Vidyamandira, Belur Math, Howrah-711202, India.
,
Bedanta Bose
Swami Niswambalananda Girls’ College, Uttarpara, Hooghly-712232, India.
and
Sourav Kanti Patra
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Berhampur, Ganjam District, Odisha-760010, India.
Abstract.
We define the notion of -set in an arbitrary semigroup, and with some mild restrictions we establish its dynamical and combinatorial characterizations. Assuming a weak form of cancellation in semigroups we have shown that the Cartesian product of finitely many -sets is a -set. A similar partial result has been proved for Cartesian product of infinitely many -sets. Finally, in a commutative semigroup we deduce that -sets (with respect to a Følner net) are -sets.
Key words and phrases:
Stone-Čech compactification, -set, Dynamical characterization, Combinatorial characterization, -set.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
37B20, 05D10
1. Introduction
The notion of -set in first appeared in [2] by Beiglböck, Bergelson, Downarowicz and Fish. They showed that any Rado system (a finite partition regular system of homogeneous linear equations with integer coefficients) is solvable in -sets. This result itself makes the collection of -sets an interesting family, as it extends the family of central sets and solutions to Rado systems can be found in every central set [5, Theorem 8.22]. In fact, -sets satisfy the conclusion of the Central Sets Theorem, i.e. they are -sets [2, Theorem 11].
In [2], a set is called a -set if there exists a compact dynamical system (i.e. a compact metric space and a continuous transformation on ), a pair of points where is essentially recurrent111Given a dynamical system is called essentially recurrent if the set has positive upper Banach density for every neighborhood of . Although, in Theorem 1.1 when we say is essentially recurrent, we mean has positive upper Banach density for every neighborhood of ., and such that belongs to the orbit closure of in the product system , and an open neighborhood of such that . However, in [3, Definition 1.2], the collection of -sets in is defined algebraically as the union of all idempotents ( is the Stone-Čech compactification of ) such that every member of has positive upper Banach density222The upper Banach density of is defined by .. But [3, Theorem 2.8] provides the following equivalent dynamical characterization of -set in .
Theorem 1.1**.**
A set is a -set if and only if there exists a compact dynamical system where is a homeomorphism, a pair of points where is essentially recurrent, and such that belongs to the orbit closure of in the product system , and an open neighborhood of such that .
As mentioned in [2], the above equivalence holds for the semigroup as well if we define -set in similarly as for .
Definition 1.2**.**
The collection (of -sets in ) is the union of all idempotents ( stands for the Stone-Čech compactification of ) such that every member of has positive upper Banach density.
In Section 2 of this article we define an algebraic notion of -set in an arbitrary semigroup (Definition 2.2) and show its existence in a large class of semigroups (Theorem 2.5). In Section 3 we provide a dynamical characterization of -sets (Theorem 3.7) with some restrictions which we will introduce accordingly. In Section 4 we provide a combinatorial characterization (Theorem 4.5) which shows the combinatorial richness of -sets. In [10], Hindman and Strauss have shown that the notions of central sets, -sets and -sets are preserved under finite Cartesian products. In Section 5 we prove the same for -sets (Theorem 5.8) assuming some weak form of cancellation in the semigroups. Moreover, in Corollary 5.14 we deduce that the projections from an infinite product of semigroups maps -sets onto -sets. In Theorem 5.18 we provide a partial converse of this result. In Section 6 it is shown that for a class of nets that exist in many semigroups, including all commutative and cancellative semigroups, any central set is a -set (Proposition 6.2). Moreover, in Theorem 6.13 we deduce that in a commutative semigroup, any -set (with respect to a Følner net) is a -set. Note that -sets are precisely the sets those satisfies the conclusion of the Central Sets Theorem [9, Corollary 14.14.10], and so are guaranteed to have substantial combinatorial structure.
Our definition of -set in an arbitrary semigroup is motivated from the algebraic definition of -sets in (Definition 1.2), and it is in the setting of , where is the Stone-Čech compactification of the semigroup [9, Definition 3.25]. From now onwards we will assume all our semigroups to be discrete. For a discrete semigroup , can be naturally identified with the collection of all ultrafilters on [9, Theorem 3.27], and the semigroup structure on induces a unique semigroup structure on so that becomes a right topological semigroup with contained in its topological center [9, Theorem 4.1]. This semigroup structure is explicitly given by, for . As a compact right topological semigroup, has a smallest two-sided ideal denoted , which is the union of all minimal right ideals of and is also the union of all minimal left ideals [9, Theorem 2.8]. For other details regarding the semigroup , see [9].
2. Preliminaries
We will use the following notion of upper Banach density [11, Definition 2.1(c)] to define -sets in arbitrary semigroup. (Given a set we write for the set of finite nonempty subset of .)
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be a semigroup, let be a net in , and let . Then the upper Banach density of with respect to is
[TABLE]
We are not assuming that has an identity. By the notation , we simply mean . Our next definition provides the algebraic notion of -sets in arbitrary semigroup.
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be a semigroup, let be a net in . Let . Then a subset of is a -set with respect to if it is contained in an idempotent of .
Note that given a semigroup and a net in , is a nonempty subset of [11, Lemma 2.3]. Moreover is closed as follows. If , then for some . Hence is an open neighborhood of and . Thus is open, i.e. is closed. In [11, Theorem 2.4] it is shown that a weak form of right cancellation in makes a right ideal of . On the other hand, in [11, Theorem 2.7] it is shown that the following condition on the net and a weak form of left cancellation in makes a left ideal of . Here we recall the terminologies for these weak form of cancellations [11, Definition 1.7], along with the above mentioned condition [11, Definition 2.6].
Definition 2.3**.**
Let be a semigroup and let . Then is -weakly left cancellative (respectively -weakly right cancellative) if for all (respectively ).
Definition 2.4**.**
Let be a semigroup and let be a net in . Then might satisfy the folowing property.
.
Now the following theorem shows the existence of -sets in a large class of semigroups.
Theorem 2.5**.**
Let be a semigroup with a given net in . Let either of the following two conditions hold:
- (1)
There is some such that is -weakly right cancellative. 2. (2)
There is some such that is -weakly left cancellative, and satisfies the condition.
Then a -set with respect to exists in .
Proof.
The condition makes a closed right ideal of , whereas the condition makes a closed left ideal of . Thus either of the conditions or in particular makes a compact subsemigroup of . Now, as is a right topological semigroup, so becomes a compact right topological semigroup. Hence, Ellis’ theorem [9, Theorem 2.5] ensures the existence of an idempotent in , and therefore a -set with respect to exists in . ∎
In the rest of the article, when the net is clear from the context, we shall not mention it and simply write -set for ‘-set with respect to ’.
3. Dynamical characterization of D-sets
In [14, 15, 16] the authors established dynamical characterizations of -sets and central sets in arbitrary semigroup along with their near zero version. Our dynamical characterization of -sets is motivated by these dynamical characterizations. Let us begin by recalling some terminology [14, Definition 2.1(a), 2.6 and 3.1] used later in this section.
Definition 3.1**.**
Let be a nonempty discrete space and a filter on . Then .
Definition 3.2**.**
A pair is a dynamical system if it satisfies the following four conditions:
- (1)
is a compact Hausdorff space. 2. (2)
is a semigroup. 3. (3)
is continuous for every . 4. (4)
For every we have .
Definition 3.3**.**
Let be a dynamical system, and points in , and a filter on . The pair is jointly -recurrent if for every neighborhood of we have .
The key ingredient to produce our dynamical characterization of -sets is the following result [14, Theorem 3.3].
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let be a semigroup, let be a filter on such that is a compact subsemigroup of , and let . Then is a member of an idempotent in if and only if there exists a dynamical system with points and in and there exists a neighborhood of such that the pair is jointly -recurrent and .
The following lemma directly follows from [14, Theorem 2.2(a)]. But here we provide a self-contained proof.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let be a semigroup with a given net in . Let . Then is a filter on and . Equivalently, . Moreover, let either of the following two conditions hold:
- (1)
There is some such that is -weakly right cancellative. 2. (2)
There is some such that is -weakly left cancellative, and satisfies the condition.
If is a subset of such that , then is a -set with respect to .
Proof.
By [9, Definition 3.1], is a filter on if it is nonempty and satisfies the following three conditions:
- (a)
If , then . 2. (b)
If and , then . 3. (c)
.
Now to prove (a), let . Then . Hence d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}S\setminus(A\cap B)\big{)}=d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}(S\setminus A)\cup(S\setminus B)\big{)}\leq d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}(S\setminus A)+d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}(S\setminus B) and we have d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}S\setminus(A\cap B)\big{)}=0, i.e. . To prove (b), let and . Then and we have . Which implies , i.e. . (c) is obvious as . Thus is a filter on .
To show , let be an element of . Then there exists such that , i.e. . As is an ultrafilter, so by [9, Theorem 3.6], implies . Therefore we have , i.e. , i.e. . Thus we have . The above implications also holds in the reverse order and that will provide us the reverse inclusion . Taking these inclusions together, we get , i.e. . But and equivalently we have .
For the last part, note that if condition or holds, then is a compact subsemigroup of . Now as , for any idempotent in , we have , i.e. for any subset of such that . Hence, the last conclusion follows. ∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a semigroup with a given net in . Let . Let be a dynamical system. Then a pair of points in is jointly -recurrent if and only if for any neighborhood of , .
Proof.
is jointly -recurrent if and only if for any neighborhood of . But if and only if . ∎
Finally we have the following dynamical characterization of -sets in a large class of semigroups.
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let be a semigroup with a given net in . Let either of the following two conditions hold:
- (1)
There is some such that is -weakly right cancellative. 2. (2)
There is some such that is -weakly left cancellative, and satisfies the condition.
Then is a -set with respect to if and only if there exists a dynamical system with points and in such that for any neighborhood of , and for some neighborhood of , .
Proof.
Note that by Lemma 3.5, we have where . So Theorem 3.4 provides us the desired dynamical characterization of -sets when we replace the condition of ‘joint -recurrence’ by its equivalence (in terms of density) which we proved in Lemma 3.6. ∎
4. Combinatorial Characterization of D-sets
In [8, Theorem 3.8], Hindman, Maleki and Strauss provide a combinatorial characterization of central sets. This ensures a sufficient amount of combinatorial richness in central sets. Also in [4, 7] the authors provide combinatorial characterizations of the near zero version of -sets and central sets. Being motivated by this, in this section we provide a combinatorial characterizations of -sets in an arbitrary semigroup. For this purpose, we will recall the notion of "tree" [8, Definition 3.4 and 3.5] in the next two definitions. We write , the first infinite ordinal and note that each ordinal is defined by the set of its predecessors (e.g. and if is the function , then ).
Definition 4.1**.**
is a tree in if is a set of functions and for each f\in\mathsf{T},\,\text{domain(f)$$\in\omega\ } and range and if domain, then . is a tree if for some is a tree in .
Definition 4.2**.**
- (1)
Let be a function with and let be given. Then . 2. (2)
Given a tree and . 3. (3)
Let be a semigroup and let . Then is a -tree in if is a tree in and for all . 4. (4)
Let be a semigroup and let . Then is a -tree in if is a tree in and for all and for all ,
[TABLE]
Given a semigroup , if is an idempotent in , then each element of naturally corresponds to a -tree. This correspondence follows from the next two lemmas [8, Lemma 3.6] and [7, Lemma 4.6].
Lemma 4.3**.**
Let be a semigroup and let . Let be an idempotent in with . There is a -tree in such that for each .
Lemma 4.4**.**
Any -tree is a -tree.
When we say is a "downward directed family", we mean is a directed set and for if , then .
Theorem 4.5**.**
Let be a semigroup with a given net in , and let . Let either of the following two conditions hold:
- (1)
There is some such that is -weakly right cancellative. 2. (2)
There is some such that is -weakly left cancellative, and satisfies the condition.
Then statements and are equivalent and implied by statement . If is countable then all the statements are equivalent.
- (a)
* is a -set with respect to .* 2. (b)
There is a -tree in such that for each F\in\mathcal{P}_{f}(\mathsf{T}),\,\,d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigcap_{f\in F}B_{f}\big{)}>0. 3. (c)
There is a -tree in such that for each F\in\mathcal{P}_{f}(\mathsf{T}),\,d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigcap_{f\in F}B_{f}\big{)}>0. 4. (d)
There is a downward directed family of subsets of such that
- (i)
for each and each there exists with and 2. (ii)
for each . 5. (e)
There is a decreasing sequence of subsets of such that
- (i)
for each and each , there exists with and 2. (ii)
for each .
Proof.
: Pick an idempotent such that . Pick a -tree in with for all (Lemma 4.3). Given , one has that for each , so . Since , we have d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigcap_{f\in F}B_{f}(\mathsf{T})\big{)}>0.
: This follows directly from Lemma 4.4.
: Let be given as guaranteed by . Let and for each . Then is a downward directed family and for each . Let and let . Let . Now for each we have . So .
: First we claim that \big{\{}C_{F}:F\in J\big{\}} satisfies the finite intersection property, i.e. for each , . Note that as is a directed set, so each pair of elements has an upper bound. This implies that each finite collection of elements of also has an upper bound. For a given , let be a common upper bound for all , i.e. for each . As is a downward directed family, so we have for each and intersecting over , we get . But as , hence in particulur , and we get , as claimed. Now by [9, Theorem 4.20], is a compact subsemigroup of . So, it suffices to show , as this ensures the existence of an idempotent in . Then as , it follows from the definition that is a -set. Now given , since , by Lemma [9, Theore 3.11] . Since is a downward directed family, so .
: This follows trivially.
Assume now that is countable. We will show that implies . Let be guaranteed by . So is countable. Enumerate as . For each , let . Then for each , . Let and let . Pick such that . Then . ∎
5. Product of D-sets
In this section we shall determine when the Cartesian products of -sets in arbitrary semigroups is a -set. To begin with, suppose we have two semigroups and with given nets and respectively in and . Consider the direct product semigroup . Order by agreeing that provided and . Define the product net .
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let and be two semigroups with given nets and respectively in and . Let each of and have an identity element. Then for and .
Proof.
Let and let . Suppose first that . Pick and such that . Pick such that for all and all , and pick such that for all and all , . Pick and such that \big{|}(A\times B)\cap\big{(}(E_{i}\times F_{j})\cdot(s,w)\big{)}\big{|}\geq\gamma\cdot|E_{i}\times F_{j}|. Then \gamma\cdot|E_{i}|\cdot|F_{j}|=\gamma\cdot|E_{i}\times F_{j}|\leq\big{|}(A\times B)\cap\big{(}(E_{i}\times F_{j})\cdot(s,w)\big{)}\big{|}=|A\cap(E_{i}\cdot s)|\cdot|B\cap(F_{j}\cdot w)|<(\alpha_{1}+\epsilon)\cdot|E_{i}|\cdot(\beta_{1}+\epsilon)\cdot|F_{j}|, and we have that , a contradiction.
Now suppose that . Pick and such that . Pick such that for all and all , \big{|}(A\times B)\cap\big{(}(E_{i}\times F_{j})\cdot(s,w)\big{)}\big{|}<\gamma\cdot|E_{i}\times F_{j}|. Pick and such that . Also pick and such that . Then \gamma\cdot|E_{i}|\cdot|F_{j}|=\gamma\cdot|E_{i}\times F_{j}|>\big{|}(A\times B)\cap\big{(}(E_{i}\times F_{j})\cdot(s,w)\big{)}\big{|}=|A\cap(E_{i}\cdot s)|\cdot|B\cap(F_{j}\cdot w)|\geq(\alpha_{1}-\epsilon)\cdot(\beta_{1}-\epsilon)\cdot|E_{i}|\cdot|F_{j}|, and we have that , a contradiction. Thus, we have . ∎
Remark 5.2**.**
The conclusion of Lemma 5.1 may not be true if the semigroups and do not have identity elements. For example consider the semigroup . Consider the two nets and where and for all . Then d_{\mathcal{E}}^{*}\big{(}\{2\}\big{)}=d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\{2\}\big{)}=1, but d_{\mathcal{E}*\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\{(2,2)\}\big{)}=0.
Lemma 5.3**.**
Let and be two semigroups. Let be the continuous extension of the inclusion map . Then for and
[TABLE]
Proof.
The subset of is nonempty as the collection \big{\{}\overline{A\times B}:A\in p,B\in q\big{\}} satisfies the finite intersection property. Note that \tilde{\iota}\big{(}\bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\overline{A\times B}\big{)}\subseteq\bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\tilde{\iota}\big{(}\overline{A\times B}\big{)} and by the continuity of we have \bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\tilde{\iota}\big{(}\overline{A\times B}\big{)}\subseteq\bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\overline{\tilde{\iota}(A\times B)}. But and finally we have \tilde{\iota}\big{(}\bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\overline{A\times B}\big{)}\subseteq\bigcap_{A\in p,B\in q}\overline{A}\times\overline{B}=\{(p,q)\}, i.e. . ∎
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let and be two semigroups with given nets and respectively in and . Let each of and have an identity element. Let be the continuous extension of the inclusion map . Then for any in and in .
Proof.
By Lemma 5.3, it suffices to show that . This will follow if we show that the collection of closed sets \big{\{}\overline{A\times B}\cap D_{\mathcal{E}*\mathcal{F}}^{*}:A\in p,B\in q\big{\}} has finite intersection property. But as each of the ultrafilters and is closed under any finite intersection of its elements, so it suffices to show that for each and , we have . To prove this, consider the collection . Note that is partition regular. Now for each and , we have and therefore [9, Theorem 3.11] provides us an ultrafilter in such that , i.e. . ∎
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let and be two semigroups and be an onto homomorphism. Then extends continuously to an onto homomorphism and for any .
Proof.
By [9, Corollary 4.22 and Exercise 3.4.1], the continuous extension is an onto homomorphism. Now pick an ultrafilter and note that . Hence \tilde{\pi}^{-1}(\{q\})=\tilde{\pi}^{-1}\big{(}\bigcap_{B\in q}\overline{B}\big{)}=\bigcap_{B\in q}\tilde{\pi}^{-1}\big{(}\overline{B}\big{)}\supseteq\bigcap_{B\in q}\overline{\pi^{-1}(B)} where the last inclusion follows from the continuity of . ∎
We omit the proof of the following lemma, since it is essentially similar to the proof of Lemma 5.4.
Lemma 5.6**.**
Let and be two semigroups with given nets and respectively in and . Let each of and have an identity element. Let be an onto homomorphism such that for all . Let be the continuous extension of . Then for any in .
Proposition 5.7**.**
Let and be two semigroups with given nets and respectively in and . Let each of and have an identity element. Let either of the following two conditions hold:
- (1)
There is some such that is -weakly right cancellative. 2. (2)
There is some such that is -weakly left cancellative, and satisfies the condition.
Let be an onto homomorphism such that for all . Then the induced homomorphism sends onto . Also, sends the idempotents of onto the idempotents of . In particular sends the -sets (with respect to ) in onto the -sets (with respect to ) in .
Proof.
Let be given. Then by [9, Lemma 3.30], . So for any in , and thus is in . This together with Lemma 5.6 now shows that sends onto .
Moreover, since is a homomorphism, so it will send the idempotents of into the idempotents of . Also, for an idempotent in , by Lemma 5.6 and hence is a closed subsemigroup of . Now by Ellis’ theorem, pick an idempotent in and we have where is an idempotent in . Thus, sends the idempotents of onto the idempotents of , i.e. in particular sends the -sets (with respect to ) in onto the -sets (with respect to ) in . ∎
Theorem 5.8**.**
Let and assume that and are two -weakly right cancellative semigroups with given nets and respectively in and . Let each of and have an identity element. Let be a subset of and be a subset of . Then is a -set (with respect to ) in if and only if both and are -sets (with respect to and respectively) in and respectively.
Proof.
Let and be two given -sets with respect to and respectively. Pick idempotents in and in such that is in and is in . Consider the continuous extension of the inclusion map . By [9, Corollary 4.22], the map is a homomorphism. Hence by Lemma 5.4, is a compact subsemigroup of . So by Ellis’ theorem, pick an idempotent . Since and is a neighborhood of , there is some such that and so . This implies and therefore, is a -set (with respect to ) in .
Conversely, let be a -set (with respect to ) in . Consider the projection homomorphism onto . Then by Lemma 5.1, d_{\mathcal{E}*\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\pi_{1}^{-1}(E)\big{)}=d_{\mathcal{E}*\mathcal{F}}^{*}(E\times W)=d_{\mathcal{E}}^{*}(E)\cdot d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}(W)=d_{\mathcal{E}}^{*}(E) for each subset of . Therefore by Proposition 5.7, is a -set with respect to . Similarly, we can prove that is a -set with respect to . ∎
Remark 5.9**.**
Inductively we can prove that for any finite collection of -weakly right cancellative semigroups , each of which contains an identity element, a subset (of ) is a -set in if and only if each is a -set in .
Now we will consider an infinite product of -sets. Let be a given collection of semigroups, each with an identity , and for , let be a net in . It would be natural to use the net \big{\langle}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,j(\imath)}\big{\rangle}_{\vec{j}\in\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}J_{\imath}} to define density on , but given is not in \mathcal{P}_{f}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}S_{\imath}\big{)} unless is a singleton for all but finitely many values of . So we will construct a new product net as follows.
For , let where is a point not in and define , specifying for all . Let \mathfrak{J}=\big{\{}\vec{j}\in\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}J_{\imath}^{{}^{\prime}}:\{\imath\in\mathcal{I}:j(\imath)\neq 1\}\text{ is finite}\big{\}}. For , agree that provided that for each . Then the product net determined by is the net \mathcal{F}=\big{\langle}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,j(\imath)}\big{\rangle}_{\vec{j}\in\mathfrak{J}}.
When we refer to the product net determined by , we will assume that we have for and as in the above paragraph. Note that, when is finite, then the above product net is essentially same with the usual product of nets. Therefore, the corresponding density is the usual density with respect to the product net. The following proposition differentiates an infinite product net from a finite one, as the conclusion holds only for infinite products.
Proposition 5.10**.**
Let be an infinite collection of semigroups with given nets in for each and assume that each has an identity element . Let be the product net determined by . Then d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\Big{(}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\setminus\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}(S_{\imath}\setminus\{1\})\big{)}\Big{)}=1.
Proof.
For , let . We will show that for each there exists and such that and
[TABLE]
So let be given and let . Let be the vector such that each . Note that . Pick such that . Now
[TABLE]
Since , and therefore so that \big{(}{\bigtimes}_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}(S_{\imath}\setminus\{1\})\big{)}\cap F_{\vec{j}}=\emptyset. Therefore \big{|}\big{(}\big{(}{\bigtimes}_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\setminus\big{(}{\bigtimes}_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}(S_{\imath}\setminus\{1\})\big{)}\big{)}\cap F_{\vec{j}}\big{|}=|F_{\vec{j}}| as required.
∎
The next lemma is a generalization of Lemma 5.1 for an infinite collection of semigroups. Note that, for an infinite collection , we define their product as .
Lemma 5.11**.**
Let be an infinite collection of semigroups with given nets in for each and assume that each has an identity element . Let be the product net determined by . Let for each . Then d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}=\prod_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}d_{\mathcal{F}_{\imath}}^{*}(A_{\imath}).
Proof.
For each , let . We may presume that each . Suppose first that d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}>\prod_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}\delta_{\imath} and pick such that d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}>\gamma>\prod_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}\delta_{\imath}. Pick such that and pick such that .
For , pick such that whenever with and , one has . We can presume that each . Define by if and if . Pick such that and such that \big{|}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}\cap\big{(}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}\big{)}\cdot\vec{s}\big{)}\big{|}>\gamma\cdot\big{|}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}\big{|}.
Let . Then . (If , delete the references to in the computation that follows.) Note that if , then so \big{|}A_{\imath}\cap\big{(}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}\cdot s_{\imath}\big{)}\big{|}\leq 1. We have then
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
Now suppose that d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}<\prod_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}\delta_{\imath} and pick such that d_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}<\gamma<\prod_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}\delta_{\imath}. Pick such that whenever with and , one has \big{|}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}A_{\imath}\big{)}\cap\big{(}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}\big{)}\cdot\vec{s}\big{)}\big{|}<\gamma\cdot\big{|}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}\big{|}. Let . Pick such that . For , pick such that and such that \big{|}A_{\imath}\cap\big{(}F_{\imath,t(\imath)}\cdot s_{\imath}\big{)}\big{|}>(\delta_{\imath}-\epsilon)\cdot\big{|}F_{\imath,t(\imath)}\big{|}. Define by if and if . For , pick and consider . Then
[TABLE]
a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 5.12**.**
Let be a collection of semigroups with given nets in for each and assume that each has an identity element. Let be a partition of . Let , and be the product nets determined by , and in \mathcal{P}_{f}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}S_{\imath}\big{)}, \mathcal{P}_{f}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)} and \mathcal{P}_{f}\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{\imath}\big{)}, respectively. Let \sigma:\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\rightarrow\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}S_{\imath} be the natural isomorphism defined by \sigma\big{(}\langle s_{\imath}\rangle_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}},\langle s_{\imath}\rangle_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}\big{)}=\langle s_{\imath}\rangle_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}} for , . Let be a subset of \big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{\imath}\big{)}. Then .
Proof.
Let \mathcal{F}=\big{\langle}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,j(\imath)}\big{\rangle}_{\vec{j}\in\mathfrak{J}}, \mathcal{G}=\big{\langle}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}F_{\imath,j_{1}(\imath)}\big{\rangle}_{\vec{j_{1}}\in\mathfrak{J}_{1}} and \mathcal{H}=\big{\langle}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}F_{\imath,j_{2}(\imath)}\big{\rangle}_{\vec{j_{2}}\in\mathfrak{J}_{2}}. Suppose first that and pick such that . Pick \big{(}\vec{j_{1}},\vec{j_{2}}\big{)}\in\mathfrak{J}_{1}\times\mathfrak{J}_{2} such that whenever \big{(}\vec{k_{1}},\vec{k_{2}}\big{)}\geq\big{(}\vec{j_{1}},\vec{j_{2}}\big{)} and \big{(}\vec{s_{1}},\vec{s_{2}}\big{)}\in\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{\imath}\big{)}, one has
[TABLE]
where and . Now consider the vector defined by . Then pick such that and pick such that
[TABLE]
Pick and such that . Also define by for each , and define by for each . Then we have \big{(}\vec{k_{1}},\vec{k_{2}}\big{)}\geq\big{(}\vec{j_{1}},\vec{j_{2}}\big{)} and \sigma\big{[}F_{\vec{k_{1}}}\times F_{\vec{k_{2}}}\big{]}=\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}, and thus
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
Now suppose that and pick such that . Pick such that whenever and , one has
[TABLE]
Now consider the vector defined by for each , and consider the vector defined by for each . Then pick such that and pick (\vec{s_{1}},\vec{s_{2}})\in\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{\imath}\big{)} such that
[TABLE]
where and . Let and consider the vector where . Then we have and \sigma\big{[}F_{\vec{k_{1}}}\times F_{\vec{k_{2}}}\big{]}=\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}}F_{\imath,k(\imath)}, and thus
[TABLE]
a contradiction. ∎
Remark 5.13**.**
In the next few concluding results of this section, whenever we consider an infinite collection of semigroups, we assume each of them to be right cancellative, so that their Cartesian product also becomes right cancellative. Note that this may not be true if we restrict to the class of -weakly right cancellative semigroups (for some ).
In particular, Proposition 5.7 implies the following result.
Corollary 5.14**.**
Let be an infinite collection of right cancellative semigroups with given nets in for each and assume that each has an identity element. Let be the product net determined by . Let be the projection map onto the component. Then maps -sets (with respect to the product net ) of onto the -sets (with respect to ) of .
Proof.
By Lemma 5.11, for each . Hence the conclusion follows from Proposition 5.7. ∎
We shall utilize the following notion of thick set [11, Definition 1.2(a)] and its algebraic characterization [11, Lemma 1.4(d)] to get a partial converse of Corollary 5.14.
Definition 5.15**.**
Let be a semigroup. A subset of is thick if for each there exists such that .
Lemma 5.16**.**
Let be a semigroup. Then a subset of is thick if and only if there is a closed left ideal of such that .
Lemma 5.17**.**
Let and assume that is a -weakly right cancellative semigroup. Let be a thick subset of . Then is a -set with respect to any net in .
Proof.
Pick a closed left ideal of such that . Pick a net in and consider the closed right ideal . Since every left ideal contains a minimal left ideal, we may assume that is a minimal left ideal. Pick a minimal right ideal . Then is a group, so pick an idempotent . Then and therefore is a -set with respect to . ∎
The following theorem is a partial converse of Corollary 5.14.
Theorem 5.18**.**
Let be an infinite collection of right cancellative semigroups with given nets in for each and assume that each has an identity element. Let be the product net determined by . If is a -set (with respect to ) in for each and the ’s are thick for all but finitely many ’s, then is a -set (with respect to the product net ) in .
Proof.
Let . Let . Now is a thick subset of the semigroup . So by Lemma 5.17, is a -set in the semigroup with respect to the product net determined by . On the other hand, as is a finite set, so by Remark 5.9 is a -set in the semigroup with respect to the product net determined by . Hence by Theorem 5.8, \big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}A_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}A_{2}\big{)} is a -set in \big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{1}}S_{\imath}\big{)}\times\big{(}\bigtimes_{\imath\in\mathcal{I}_{2}}S_{2}\big{)} with respect to the product net . Therefore by Lemma 5.12, is a -set in the semigroup with respect to the product net . ∎
Remark 5.19**.**
In general, the infinite product of -sets may not be a -set. For example, by [9, Lemma 5.19.1] is a -set in the additive group , and the upper Banach density of is (with respect to the Følner sequence , where for each , ). But by Lemma 5.11, with respect to the product net on the countable product . Hence is not a -set.
6. Relations with Central sets and -sets
As mentioned in the Introduction, for the additive semigroup we have the following inclusions.
[TABLE]
In this section, we study these inclusions in general with some natural restrictions on the semigroup , and the corresponding net in . We shall begin by recalling the definition of central sets in an arbitrary semigroup [9, Definition 4.42].
Definition 6.1**.**
Let be a semigroup and let . Then is central in if there is some idempotent such that .
The following proposition is concerning the implication of central sets to -sets.
Proposition 6.2**.**
Let and assume that is both a -weakly left and a -weakly right cancellative semigroup. Let be a net in which satisfies the condition. Then every central set in is a -set in with respect to .
Proof.
If is both -weakly left and -weakly right cancellative for some , and if satisfies the condition, then is a two sided ideal. Hence contains . Therefore, any idempotent of is also an idempotent of . ∎
To study the inclusion of -sets inside -sets, let us begin by recalling the definition of -set in an arbitrary semigroup [13, Definition 3.1].
Definition 6.3**.**
Let be a semigroup.
- (1)
For each positive integer put . 2. (2)
Put , and if the semigroup is clear from context, we will instead write for . 3. (3)
For all positive integers , every , every , and for all , put x(m,a,t,f)=\Big{(}\displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{m}(a(i)f(t_{i}))}\Big{)}a(m+1). 4. (4)
We call a -set if there exists , and such that the following two conditions are satisfied:
- (a)
If and are both elements of with , then \tau(F)\big{(}m(F)\big{)}<\tau(G)(1), and 2. (b)
Whenever is a positive integer, with , and for each we have , then \displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{m}x\big{(}m(G_{i}),\alpha(G_{i}),\tau(G_{i}),f_{i}\big{)}\in A}.
We shall also recall the definition of -sets [13, Definition 2.1 and 2.6], which are closely related to -sets and will be used later.
Definition 6.4**.**
Let be a semigroup.
- (1)
We call a -set (in ) if for every , there exist and such that for every , we have . 2. (2)
.
If is a commutative semigroup, then we know that satisfies the Strong Følner Condition (SFC) [1, Theorem 4]. The following definition for (SFC) is taken from [11].
Definition 6.5**.**
A semigroup satisfies the Strong Følner Condition (SFC) if .
In a semigroup , (SFC) ensures the existence of a special type of net in , called Følner net [11, Theorem 4.2]. The definition of Følner net is as follows [11, Definition 4.1].
Definition 6.6**.**
Let be a semigroup and let be a net in . Then is a Følner net if for each , the net \Big{\langle}\frac{|sF_{i}\triangle F_{i}|}{|F_{i}|}\Big{\rangle}_{i\in I} converges to [math].
The following notion of Følner density [11, Definition 4.15] will be used in the next lemma to provide an upper bound for the Upper Banach density with respect to any Følner net.
Definition 6.7**.**
Let be a semigroup which satisfies the (SFC). Let . Then the Følner density of is .
Lemma 6.8**.**
Let be a semigroup which satisfies (SFC). Let be a Følner net in . Then for all , .
Proof.
This is an immediate consequence of [11, Theorem 4.16] and the trivial fact that . ∎
So, given a Følner net in , we have and this insists us to define the following terminology.
Definition 6.9**.**
Let be a semigroup which satisfies (SFC). Let . We say that is a -set if it is a member of an Idempotent in .
Thus, in a commutative semigroup , we conclude that every -set is a -set. This follows from [12, Lemma 2.2 and Theorem 6.10] and [13, Theorem 3.2], which we recall here in order.
Lemma 6.10**.**
Let be a semigroup which satisfies (SFC). Then for every , there exists a left invariant mean on (i.e. a regular Borel probability measure on such that for every , and every ) such that .
Theorem 6.11**.**
Let be a commutative semigroup and let be such that for some left invariant mean on . Then is a -set.
Theorem 6.12**.**
Let be a semigroup. If is an idempotent, then every is a -set.
Finally, in a commutative semigroup, the above discussion culminates into the following theorem.
Theorem 6.13**.**
Let be a commutative semigroup with a given Følner net in . Then any -set with respect to is a -set.
Note that the only obstruction to prove the Theorem 6.13 for a general class of noncommutative semigroup is the Theorem 6.11, which uses an Ergodic Szemerédi theorem for commuting IP-system [6, Theorem A] as one of the main ingredients. At the end, with the support of Theorem 6.13, we raise the following question.
Question 6.14**.**
Let be a semigroup which satisfies the Strong Følner Condition (SFC). Let be a Følner net in . Then does a -set with respect to always become a C-set?
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their generous comments and suggestions on the previous manuscripts. The first author gratefully acknowledges the UGC-NET SRF fellowship with Ref. No. 20/12/2015(ii)EU-V of CSIR-UGC NET December 2015. The third author acknowledges the fellowship from IISER Berhampur with Ref. No. IISERBPR/CoFA/2019/74.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. N. Argabright, C. O. Wilde, Semigroups satisfying a strong Følner condition , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967), 587 –591.
- 2[2] M. Beiglböck, V. Bergelson, T. Downarowicz, A. Fish, Solvability of Rado systems in D-sets , Topology Appl. 156 (2009), no. 16, 2565 –2571.
- 3[3] V.Bergelson, T. Downarowicz, Large sets of integers and hierarchy of mixing properties of measure preserving systems , Colloq. Math. 110 (2008), no. 1, 117 –150.
- 4[4] T. Bhattacharya, S. Chakraborty, S. K. Patra, Combined algebraic properties of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -sets near zero , Semigroup Forum 100 (2020), no. 3, 717 –731.
- 5[5] H. Furstenberg, Recurrence in ergodic theory and combinatorial number theory , M. B. Porter Lectures. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1981.
- 6[6] H. Furstenberg, Y. Katznelson, An ergodic Szemerédi theorem for IP-systems and combinatorial theory , J. Analyse Math. 45 (1985), 117 –168.
- 7[7] N. Hindman, I. Leader, The semigroup of ultrafilters near 0 , Semigroup Forum 59 (1999), no. 1, 33 –55.
- 8[8] N. Hindman, A. Maleki, D. Strauss, Central sets and their combinatorial characterization , J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 74 (1996), no. 2, 188 –208.
