Polynomially weighted $\ell^p$-completions and group homology
Alexander Engel, Clara Loeh

TL;DR
This paper introduces polynomially weighted ^p-norms on group bar complexes and shows that for groups of polynomial or exponential growth, the resulting homology is independent of p in (1, ).
Contribution
It defines new weighted ^p-norms on group homology complexes and proves p-independence of homology for certain groups.
Findings
Homology of weighted complexes is p-independent for polynomial/exponential growth groups.
Weighted ^p-norms are introduced on bar complexes.
Homology results apply to finitely generated groups with specific growth conditions.
Abstract
We introduce polynomially weighted -norms on the bar complex of a finitely generated group. We prove that, for groups of polynomial or exponential growth, the homology of the completed complex does not depend on the value of in the range .
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.
ection]section 0
footnotesection
Polynomially weighted -completions and group homology
Alexander Engel [email protected]
Clara Löh [email protected]
(Fakultät für Mathematik
Universität Regensburg
93040 Regensburg, Germany)
Abstract
We introduce polynomially weighted -norms on the bar complex of a finitely generated group. We prove that, for groups of polynomial or exponential growth, the homology of the completed complex does not depend on the value of in the range .
Contents
1 Introduction
Let be a finitely generated group. In order to state our main result, we quickly introduce the main players in it.
The group homology can be computed as the homology of the bar complex . Chains are of the form , where only finitely many of the coefficients are non-zero. We choose a finite generating set for to get a word-metric on . For and we then define a weighted norm on by \|c\|_{n,p}^{S}:=\bigl{(}\sum_{g\in G^{k}}|a_{g}|^{p}\cdot\operatorname{diam}_{S}(g)^{n}\bigr{)}^{1/p}. We equip with the family of norms and denote the corresponding completion to a Fréchet space by . The homology of the resulting chain complex is denoted by .
Main Theorem** (Theorem 1, Proposition 6).**
Let be a finitely generated group of polynomial or exponential growth and let with . Then the canonical homomorphism is an isomorphism.
Relation to the strong Novikov conjecture
Let us explain why we are interested in a theorem like the one above. We first have to recall the following two notions. Firstly, a group is called of type , if it admits a model for its classifying space of finite type (i.e., a CW-complex that in each dimension has only finitely many cells). Secondly, a group of type is called polynomially contractible, if its Dehn function and its higher-dimensional analogues are polynomially bounded. Note that this assumption on is not very strong: most of the groups that one would call non-positively curved (like hyperbolic groups, CAT(0)-groups, systolic groups or mapping class groups) are polynomially contractible. This follows from the fact that if a group is polynomially combable (i.e., combable with a uniform polynomial bound on the lengths of the combing paths), then it is polynomially contractible [JR09, End of 2nd paragraph on p. 257][Eng18, Prop. 3.4].
For hyperbolic groups any choice of geodesics in the Cayley graph will be a suitable combing, for CAT(0)-groups any choice of quasi-geodesics in the group following uniformly closely CAT(0)-geodesics in the underlying space will do the job, for systolic groups one can use the bi-automatic structure found by Januszkiewicz–Świa̧tkowski [JŚ06, Thm. E] or the combing by Osajda–Przytycki [OP09], and an automatic structure on mapping class groups was provided by Mosher [Mos95]. For a thorough compilation of polynomially contractible groups see the introduction of [Eng18].
Corollary**.**
Let be a group of type , and of polynomial or exponential growth, and let be polynomially contractible. If there exists some such that the canonical homomorphism is injective, then the strong Novikov conjecture holds for .
Proof.
The proof relies on the following diagram [Eng18]:
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the norm completion of and the top horizontal map is the analytic assembly map. In the case we have , i.e., the reduced group -algebra, and the strong Novikov conjecture asserts that the analytic assembly map in this case (i.e., for ) is rationally injective.
Let be any non-trivial element. Because the homological Chern character is an isomorphism, there is some such that is non-zero. If is of type and polynomially contractible, then the canonical map is an isomorphism [Eng18, Corollary 4.4]. (Analogous statements in the dual situation, i.e., for the corresponding cohomology groups, also hold [Ogl05, JR09, Mey06].) Further, the right vertical map in the above diagram exists for all . Hence, for such the element is not in the kernel of the analytic assembly map.
Since our goal is the strong Novikov conjecture, i.e., to show that the element is not in the kernel of the assembly map for , we can try to go with the lower horizontal map to for some instead of to , i.e, we consider the new diagram
[TABLE]
Also in this case, we can construct the right vertical map for all (this can be shown as in previous work of the first named author [Eng18, Proposition 5.1]). In particular, if is big enough, we can do it for . We have already noted above that polynomial contractibility gives us that the canonical map is an isomorphism. Using the main theorem, we see that if the canonical map is injective for some , then will be injective for every . Hence our element is not in the kernel of the assembly map for the case . ∎
Unfortunately, the hypotheses of this corollary are not satisfied for all groups: For example, for the free group of rank , the canonical homomorphism is trivial for all (Theorem 1, Theorem 4). In fact, we expect this vanishing result to hold in far greater generality, and thus this approach to the strong Novikov conjecture is not promising.
Questions
Let us collect some open problems arising from the present paper. Since this seems to be the first time that such polynomially weighted -completions of group homology are defined, there are many natural questions left open.
- •
Does Theorem 1, i.e., the comparison in the range , also hold for groups of intermediate growth?
- •
For which groups of superpolynomial growth does Theorem 1 also hold in the cases “” or “” ?
- •
For which groups and which is the canonical map , resp. the canonical map , injective?
- •
For which groups and which , is non-trivial? How can such classes be detected?
Related work
Though this seems to be the first time that these polynomially weighted -completions of group homology are defined, there are of course similar things already in the literature:
- •
Bader, Furman and Sauer [BFS13] investigate the comparison maps from ordinary homology and Sobolev homology, respectively, to the -homology of any word hyperbolic group.
- •
Nowak and Špakula [NŠ10] study coarse homology theory with prescribed growth conditions.
- •
Weighted simplicial homology was studied by Dawson [Daw90] and by Ren, Wu and Wu [RWW17].
- •
The dual situation to the one from the present paper, but only in the case of , i.e., group cohomology of polynomial growth, was studied by Connes and Moscovici [CM90] in relation with the strong Novikov conjecture, and further investigated by many others like Ji [Ji92], Meyer [Mey06] and Ogle [Ogl05].
Overview of this article
Section 2 introduces the polynomially weighted -versions of group homology in full detail and discusses the case of groups of polynomial growth. In Section 3, we establish the comparison theorem for groups of exponential growth. The vanishing result for the free group is proved in Section 4.
Acknowledgements
The authors were supported by the SFB 1085 Higher Invariants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG. The first named author was also supported by the Research Fellowship EN 1163/1-1 Mapping Analysis to Homology of the DFG, and the DFG Priority Programme SPP 2026 Geometry at Infinity (EN 1163/3-1 “Duality and the coarse assembly map”). Moreover, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for providing helpful comments.
2 Weighted -norms on group homology
2.1 Definition and basic properties
Definition 1** (weighted -norms).**
Let be a finitely generated group endowed with a finite generating set , let , and let . For we define the -weighted -norm (with respect to ) by
[TABLE]
where is the diameter with respect to the word metric on .
We then equip with the family of norms and denote the corresponding completion to a Fréchet space by . By construction, the boundary operator of extends continuously to and the homology of is called -polynomially bounded homology of , denoted by .
In the case of , we proceed in the same manner, using the -weighted -norms (with respect to ), defined by
[TABLE]
Remark 2**.**
If is a finitely generated group, , and , then different finite generating sets of lead to equivalent (semi-)norms and on . Therefore, the completions and the homology are independent of the choice of finite generating sets.
Remark 3**.**
Let be a finitely generated group and let with . Then the canonical inclusion is contractive in the following sense: For every finite generating set of and every the identity map has norm at most with respect to the norms and , respectively. In particular, we obtain a canonical induced map
[TABLE]
If and , then
[TABLE]
which yields a canonical map .
2.2 The case
It is already known that the canonical map is an isomorphism for a large class of groups.
To state the corresponding theorem, we have to recall two notions. Firstly, a group is called of type , if it admits a model for its classifying space of finite type (i.e., a CW-complex that in each dimension has only finitely many cells). Secondly, a group of type is called polynomially contractible, if its Dehn function and its higher-dimensional analogues are polynomially bounded.
Most of the groups that one calls non-positively curved (like hyperbolic groups, systolic groups, -groups or mapping class groups) are polynomially contractible (see the introduction for references).
The following theorem has been proved (in variations) by different people in different ways [Eng18, CM90, Mey06, Ogl05, JR09, JOR13]:
Theorem 4**.**
Let be a group of type that is polynomially contractible. Then the canonical map is an isomorphism.
Remark 5**.**
Without the assumption of polynomial contractibility, Theorem 4 is likely false.
Ji, Ogle, and Ramsey provided groups whose comparison maps from bounded cohomology to ordinary cohomology fail to be injective or surjective, respectively [JOR13, Sec. 6.4 & 6.5]. Bounded cohomology, as they investigate it, is dual to our in the sense that it pairs with it (and this pairing is compatible with the usual pairing of homology with cohomology under the comparison maps). Please be also aware that their bounded cohomology is not the one used by Gromov [Gro82].
It seems therefore plausible that the groups of Ji, Ogle and Ramsey are also examples of groups for which the canonical map is not injective or surjective, respectively.
2.3 Comparison on groups of polynomial growth
Proposition 6**.**
Let be a finitely generated group of polynomial growth and let with .
Then the inclusion is bounded from below in the following sense: For every finite generating set of and all there exist and with
[TABLE] 2. 2.
In particular, the canonical map (Remark 3) is an isomorphism.
Proof 2.1**.**
Ad 1. We first consider the case . Let be the polynomial growth rate of , let be a finite generating set of , and let . Then
[TABLE]
has the desired property, as can be seen by the generalized Hölder inequality: Because is the polynomial growth rate of , there is a constant with
[TABLE]
Moreover, because of , there is with
[TABLE]
We now consider and the weight functions
[TABLE]
By definition, and (where “” denotes pointwise multiplication). Applying the generalized Hölder inequality, we hence obtain
[TABLE]
and it remains to bound by a constant. The polynomial growth condition yields
[TABLE]
In the case , one can proceed in a similar way (with ).
Ad 2. By the first part, the identity map on the ordinary chain complex induces an isomorphism . Hence, the claim follows.
2.4 Functoriality of weighted -chain complexes
Definition 7** (polynomially controlled kernel).**
Let be a finitely generated group.
- •
A subgroup is polynomially controlled, if for one (whence every) finite generating set there exist and such that
[TABLE]
- •
Let be a group. A group homomorphism has polynomially controlled kernel if the subgroup of is polynomially controlled in the sense above.
Clearly, all group homomorphisms with finite kernel have polynomially controlled kernel as well as all group homomorphisms mapping out of finitely generated groups of polynomial growth.
Remark 8**.**
If is a polynomially controlled subgroup of a finitely generated group , then every finitely generated subgroup of has polynomial growth.
The reason for this is that the inclusion does not increase lengths of elements if we choose a finite generating set of containing the chosen finite generating set of to define the word lengths. More concretely, we have for all
[TABLE]
We see that we even actually have that the growth rates of finitely generated subgroups of are uniformly bounded from above.
Lemma 9**.**
Let be a hyperbolic group and a subgroup of . Then is a polynomially controlled subgroup if and only if is virtually cyclic.
Proof 2.2**.**
Let be a polynomially controlled subgroup. By Remark 8 finitely generated subgroups of are of polynomial growth. In particular, does not contain a free group of rank . As the ambient group is hyperbolic, this implies that is virtually cyclic [Ghy90, Corollaire on p. 224].
Let be virtually cyclic. Without loss of generality we can assume that is isomorphic to . Then is quasi-isometrically embedded in [BH99, Corollary III..3.10(1)] and hence a polynomially controlled subgroup of .
Proposition 10**.**
Let , let and be finitely generated groups, and let be a group homomorphism with polynomially controlled kernel. Then the induced chain map is continuous with respect to the weighted -Fréchet topologies.
Proof 2.3**.**
Let us establish some notation: Let and be finite generating sets, and without loss of generality we may assume that . Let be the polynomial control rate of ; hence, there is a with
[TABLE]
Furthermore, let and . It then suffices to prove that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
The arguments are similar to the proof of Proposition 6:
Let , say . By definition of , we have
[TABLE]
where \varphi^{-1}(h):=\bigl{\{}g\in G^{k}\bigm{|}\forall_{j\in\{1,\dots,k\}}\quad\varphi(g_{j})=h_{j}\bigr{\}}.
We will first consider the case . Let
[TABLE]
and let . As first step, we bound the inner sum for a given (without loss of generality, we may assume ): By the Hölder inequality,
[TABLE]
The first factor is related to and hence of the right type. We will now take care of the second factor: To this end, for let be a minimiser of \min\bigl{\{}d_{S}(e,g)\bigm{|}g\in G,\ \varphi(g)=h_{j}\bigr{\}}. Then we have
[TABLE]
and hence the polynomial control on the kernel yields
[TABLE]
We set . Putting it all together, we obtain (because )
[TABLE]
as desired.
In the case , the estimates above simplify significantly because the inner sum can be treated directly with the inherited -bound and one obtains
[TABLE]
In the case , we take . Then the inner sum admits the following estimate for given (without loss of generality, we may assume ):
[TABLE]
This implies .
Corollary 11** (functoriality).**
Let , let and be finitely generated groups, and let be a group homomorphism with polynomially controlled kernel.
Then admits a well-defined, continuous extension
[TABLE]
which is a chain map. 2. 2.
In particular, we obtain a corresponding homomorphism that is compatible with .
Proof 2.4**.**
This is a direct consequence of Proposition 10.
3 Comparison in the range
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a finitely generated group of exponential growth and with .
The inclusion is a chain homotopy equivalence. 2. 2.
In particular, the canonical map (see Remark 3) is an isomorphism.
The proof of Theorem 1 is based on the following basic chain-level result, which will be proved in Section 3.2.
Proposition 2**.**
Let be a finitely generated group of exponential growth with finite generating set and let with . Then there exists a chain map and a chain homotopy between and the identity with the following properties: For all there exist and such that for all we have
[TABLE]
Taking Proposition 2 for granted, the proof of Theorem 1 is immediate:
Proof 3.1** (Proof of Theorem 1).**
We write for the canonical inclusion map. Let and be maps as provided by Proposition 2. Estimates (3.1) and (3.2) show that extends to a continuous chain map
[TABLE]
Similarly, the Estimates (3.3) and (3.4) (for and for ) show that extends to continuous chain homotopies
[TABLE]
between and the identity on and between and the identity on , respectively. Therefore, is a chain homotopy equivalence and thus induces an isomorphism on homology.
3.1 Diffusion
It remains to construct the maps and in Proposition 2. The fundamental observation is that -norms on can be decreased by diffusing the coefficients over a large number of simplices. Therefore, we diffuse the simplices by coning them off with cone points in annuli of suitable radii (Figure 1).
Definition 3** (diffusion cone operator).**
Let be a finitely generated group, and let be a map (here denotes the collection of finite subsets of ). The diffusion cone operator associated with is defined by
[TABLE]
The key parameter of the diffusion cone construction is the function determining the supports of the diffused simplices. We will use wide enough annuli of large enough radii. More precisely, we let the radii grow polynomially (of high degree) in terms of the diameter of the original simplices.
Definition 4** (diffusion annuli).**
Let be a finitely generated group with a chosen finite generating set and let . We define the diffusion annuli map of degree for by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Moreover, we write
[TABLE]
Before starting with the actual proof of Proposition 2, we first collect some basic estimates concerning this diffusion construction:
Lemma 5** (accumulation control).**
In the situation of Definition 4, we have for all , all , and all :
Clearly, . 2. 2.
If , , and satisfy the relation , then
[TABLE] 3. 3.
If and satisfy , then
[TABLE]
Proof 3.2**.**
Ad 1. This is immediate from the construction.
Ad 2. Because both simplices have the same -vertex (namely ), all the vertices must coincide. Thus, . Because the annuli defined by are disjoint for different radii and because , we obtain .
Ad 3. The assumption implies that
[TABLE]
In particular, . Using the abbreviations and , we obtain by the triangle inequality that is in the intersection
[TABLE]
(which is hence non-empty). Therefore, .
Lemma 6** (norm control).**
In the situation of Definition 4, let , and let
[TABLE]
Furthermore, let be a set, let be a map, and let be a function controlling the size of the fibres of , i.e.,
[TABLE]
For functions , we define the push-forward
[TABLE]
Finally, let and let be a function with finite support.
Then
[TABLE] 2. 2.
Moreover, let with , let with , and let be a function such that is -summable. Then (with respect to pointwise multiplication)
[TABLE]
Proof 3.3**.**
The first part is a consequence of the following elementary estimate: For all and all , we have (by looking at a coefficient of maximal modulus)
[TABLE]
The second part is just an instance of the generalized Hölder inequality.
3.2 Completing the proof of the comparison result
Proof 3.4** (Proof of Proposition 2).**
We choose the parameter for the construction in Definition 4 (basically any choice will work because of the exponential growth of ). Let be the associated diffusion annuli map (Definition 4) and let be the diffusion cone operator associated with (Definition 3). We then define
[TABLE]
It is clear that is a chain map and a chain homotopy between and the identity on .
Therefore, it remains to prove the norm estimates. We first replace this zoo of estimates by the following estimates: For all there exist and such that for all we have
[TABLE]
These estimates imply the Estimates (3.1)–(3.4) (modulo unification of the constants by taking the maximum) as follows:
- •
Estimate (3.3) follows from Estimate (3.5).
- •
Estimate (3.1) follows from the fact that and the Estimates (3.7) and (3.6) (with modified constants).
- •
Estimate (3.2) follows from (3.1) and the fact that is a chain map.
- •
Estimate (3.4) then follows from and the Estimates (3.1) (and Remark 3), and (3.3) (with modified constants).
In the following, let , and let
[TABLE]
We will first prove (3.5); of course, (3.5) follows from (3.6) (with Remark 3), but we will use this straightforward estimate as warm-up for the other estimates. By construction of the diffusion cone operator , we have (using Lemma 5.1 for the first inequality, and Definition 4 of for the second inequality)
[TABLE]
Before proving (3.6) and (3.7), let us first fix some notation: Because of , there is some such that ; let , let , and let .
Let us establish (3.6) (with ): The generalized Hölder inequality shows that
[TABLE]
We denote the first factor by and the second factor by . As , we obtain
[TABLE]
The term can be estimated via
[TABLE]
where denotes the growth function of with respect to . The second factor in the series above is dominated by a polynomial (in ); we will now show that the first factor decreases exponentially in : By definition, we have
[TABLE]
Because has exponential growth, there is an such that holds for all . Therefore, for all ,
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
which (eventually) decreases exponentially in . Hence, is dominated by a convergent series (whose value is independent of ). This shows Estimate (3.6).
Finally, we prove the most delicate Estimate (3.7). By construction,
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
We will treat these sums separately. In order to introduce , we again will use the generalized Hölder inequality. However, in contrast with the previous estimates, we now have to carefully control accumulations of coefficients on -simplices (using Lemma 5 and Lemma 6).
We will only treat the first sum in detail (the other sums can be handled in the same way by modifying accordingly). We will apply Lemma 6 to the following situation: We consider the set
[TABLE]
together with the canonical projection . In view of Lemma 5, the projection has -controlled fibres, where
[TABLE]
Let with and
[TABLE]
Then, by construction,
[TABLE]
We will now bound from above with the help of Lemma 6: Clearly, has finite support. Let us show that is a -summable function. By definition of , we have (with )
[TABLE]
Because , the same argument as in the proof of Estimate (3.6) shows that first factor (eventually) decreases at least exponentially in while grows only polynomially in . Therefore, this series is convergent; let be the value of this series. The first part of Lemma 6 shows that is -summable and that
[TABLE]
Therefore, the second part of Lemma 6 shows that
[TABLE]
It hence remains to provide a suitable estimate for . Using Lemma 6, we obtain
[TABLE]
Again, because , we see as in the proof of the Estimate (3.6) that the first factor is bounded, say by . Then,
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of Proposition 2 and hence of Theorem 1.
4 A vanishing result in degree
We have the following vanishing result for the free group of rank :
Theorem 1**.**
Let . Then the canonical homomorphism is the zero map.
Proof 4.1**.**
Let be a free generating set of the free group of rank . In this proof, all distances, diameters, norms, etc. will be taken with respect to this generating set .
Before starting with the actual proof, we perform the following reductions:
- •
In view of Theorem 1, it suffices to prove Theorem 1 for .
- •
Because is generated by the homology classes corresponding to the cycles and , it suffices to show that the classes in represented by and are trivial.
- •
Since the classes represented by and only differ by an isometric automorphism of , it suffices to prove the vanishing for .
To this end, we will construct an explicit chain in whose boundary is .
The geometric idea for the construction of such a -chain is to start with two -simplices with coefficient that contain as an edge; inductively, we then choose two -simplices with halved coefficients that contain the new edges … (Figure 2). The resulting infinite chain will converge in the -setting because the coefficients are distributed over enough summands. The main technical difficulty is to ensure that the weights are really distributed so that they do not accumulate on simplices via accidental cancellations. This will be achieved by a careful selection of markers and suffixes that encode the induction level and the two different choices at each stage.
We will describe the construction of in a top-down manner, first giving the final formula and then explaining all the ingredients: For , we set
[TABLE]
We will then show that the sequence converges to a chain
[TABLE]
that satisfies . But first we have to explain the ingredients of : To this end, we define (by mutual recursion) the subsets (keeping track of the set of edges), the suffixes , the markers and the -simplices and :
- •
For each , we set and .
- •
We set (and ) and for , we let
[TABLE]
where (for each )
[TABLE]
- •
Inductively, we see that for all . We can thus choose an injection and view the words with as elements of .
- •
For and , we set
[TABLE]
- •
Finally, the signs are defined as follows: We set ; for and , we set
[TABLE]
By construction, all elements of consist of non-negative powers of and and no cancellations occur in the definitions above. Therefore, , , and are well-defined. Moreover, the construction of the edge sets is justified by the following observation: For each and each , we have
[TABLE]
In order to prove convergence of and , we need to estimate the diameters of the simplices involved: For and , we have
[TABLE]
inductively, we obtain for
[TABLE]
and therefore
[TABLE]
We now give the convergence arguments:
- •
The sequence is Cauchy with respect to : Let with and let . By construction, we have
[TABLE]
The markers/suffixes show that all of these -simplices are different (so no cumulations of coefficients occur). Therefore,
[TABLE]
Because , the corresponding series on the right-hand side is convergent. Therefore, these differences between its partial sums form a Cauchy sequence.
- •
The sequence is Cauchy with respect to : Let with and let . By construction, we have
[TABLE]
The markers/suffixes show that all of these -simplices are different (so no cumulations of coefficients occur). Therefore,
[TABLE]
Because , these terms converge to [math] for .
Thus, we have established that is a well-defined chain. By a similar computation as the previous one for , we have
[TABLE]
as claimed.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BFS 13] U. Bader, A. Furman, and R. Sauer, Efficient subdivision in hyperbolic groups and applications , Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics 7 (2013), no. 2, 263–292.
- 2[BH 99] M. R. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric Spaces of Non-Positive Curvature , Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 319, Springer, 1999.
- 3[CM 90] A. Connes and H. Moscovici, Cyclic cohomology, the Novikov Conjecture and hyperbolic groups , Topology 29 (1990), no. 3, 345–388.
- 4[Daw 90] R. J. Mac G. Dawson, Homology of weighted simplicial complexes , Cahiers de top. géom. différ. cat. 31 (1990), no. 3, 229–243.
- 5[Eng 18] A. Engel, Banach strong Novikov conjecture for polynomially contractible groups , Adv. Math. 330 (2018), 148–172.
- 6[Ghy 90] É. Ghys, Les groupes hyperboliques , Astérisque (1990), no. 189–190, Exp. No. 722, 203–238, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1989/90.
- 7[Gro 82] M. Gromov, Volume and Bounded Cohomology , Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S. 56 (1982), 5–99.
- 8[Ji 92] R. Ji, Smooth dense subalgebras of reduced group C ∗ superscript 𝐶 ∗ C^{\ast} -algebras, Schwartz cohomology of groups, and cyclic cohomology , J. Funct. Anal. 107 (1992), 1–33.
