Comparison radius and mean topological dimension: Rokhlin property, comparison of open sets, and subhomogeneous C*-algebras
Zhuang Niu

TL;DR
This paper establishes a relationship between the comparison radius of crossed product C*-algebras and the mean topological dimension of free minimal dynamical systems, under certain Rokhlin and comparison conditions.
Contribution
It proves that the comparison radius is at most half the mean topological dimension when the system has a uniform Rokhlin property and Cuntz comparison on open sets.
Findings
Comparison radius is at most half the mean topological dimension.
Conditions are satisfied for $ ext{Z}$ actions and certain extensions.
Uses Cuntz comparison and subgroupoid techniques.
Abstract
Let be a free minimal dynamical system, where is a compact separable Hausdorff space and is a discrete amenable group. It is shown that, if has a version of Rokhlin property (uniform Rokhlin property) and if has a Cuntz comparison on open sets, then the comparison radius of the crossed product C*-algebra is at most half of the mean topological dimension of . These two conditions are shown to be satisfied if or if is an extension of a free Cantor system and has subexponential growth. The main tools being used are Cuntz comparison of diagonal elements of a subhomogeneous C*-algebra and small subgroupoids.
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
TopicsAdvanced Operator Algebra Research · Advanced Topics in Algebra · Advanced Topology and Set Theory
Comparison radius and mean topological dimension: Rokhlin property, comparison of open sets, and subhomogeneous C*-algebras
Zhuang Niu
Department of Mathematics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA
Abstract.
Let be a free minimal dynamical system, where is a compact separable Hausdorff space and is a discrete amenable group. It is shown that, if has a version of Rokhlin property (uniform Rokhlin property) and if has a Cuntz comparison on open sets, then the comparison radius of the crossed product C*-algebra is at most half of the mean topological dimension of .
These two conditions are shown to be satisfied if or if is an extension of a free Cantor system and has subexponential growth. The main tools being used are Cuntz comparison of diagonal elements of a subhomogeneous C*-algebra and small subgroupoids.
Key words and phrases:
comparison radius, crossed-product C*-algebra, mean topological dimension
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
46L35, 54H20
The research is partially supported by a Simons Collaboration Grant (Grant #317222) and partially supported by an NSF grant (DMS-1800882)
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Notation and preliminaries
- 3 Uniform Rokhlin property and structure of
- 4 Comparison of open sets, comparison radius, and mean topological dimension
- 5 Recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebras with diagonal maps
- 6 Small subgroupoids and recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebras
- 7 Comparison of diagonal elements and comparison of open sets
- 8 Lower semicontinuous set-valued functions and small subgroupoids
1. Introduction
Consider a topological dynamical system , where is a compact Hausdorff space and is a discrete amenable group. The mean (topological) dimension of , denoted by , was introduced by Gromov ([21]), and then was developed and studied systematically by Lindenstrauss and Weiss ([32]). It is a numerical invariant, taking value in , to measure the complexity of in terms of dimension growth with respect to partial orbits.
On the other hand, the concept of dimension growth also appears in the classification theory of C*-algebras, and it is used to provide a condition for a certain C*-algebra to be classified by its Elliott invariant. For example, consider a unital inductive system of C*-algebras
[TABLE]
where each is the algebra of -valued continuous functions on some compact separable Hausdorff space ; its dimension growth is defined as
[TABLE]
where is the topological covering dimension of . If the dimension growth is [math], then the isomorphism classes of the limit C*-algebras are classified by their Elliott invariant ([19], [9], [42]). (See [20], [11] [14], and [10] for further developments of the classification of C*-algebras in this direction.)
For a general abstract C*-algebra, it might not have an obvious inductive limit decomposition in terms of homogeneous or subhomogeneous C*-algebras as the example above. In such cases, comparison radius, introduced by Toms ([40]) and denoted by , plays a role as the dimension growth of such a C*-algebra .
Let us start with some comparison theory of C*-algebras. Let be positive elements of a matrix algebra over . Then is said to be Cuntz sub-equivalent to if there are sequences in a matrix algebra over such that
[TABLE]
In the case that are projections, the Cuntz sub-equivalence relation recovers the classical Murray-von Neumann sub-equivalence relation; and moreover, if , is Cuntz sub-equivalent to if and only if the vector bundle over induced by is isomorphic to a sub-bundle of the the vector bundle induced by .
If is Cuntz sub-equivalent to , then the rank function induced by is always dominated by the rank function induced by , just like the case above, the rank of the vector bundle induced by is at most the rank of the vector bundle induced by . The converse is not true in general, as there are many examples of a pair of vector bundles such that the bundle with smaller rank is not isomorphic to a sub-bundle of the other one.
However, if the gap between the ranks of two (complex) vector bundles is sufficiently large (larger than ), then the converse is true; that is, the vector bundle with small dimension is isomorphic to a sub-bundle of the vector bundle with larger dimension.
The comparison radius is the infimum of all the gaps of the ranks so that the converse does hold (see Definition 2.13), and a typical example is that the comparison radius of is at most , that is, half of the dimension ratio of . Thus, in general, the comparison radius is regarded as a version of dimension growth for an abstract C*-algebra.
For the given topological dynamical system , the natural C*-algebra to be considered is the crossed product C*-algebra . It would be interesting to compare the mean dimension of (the dynamical dimension growth) with the comparison radius of (the C*-algebraic dimension growth), and this is the main motivation of this paper. Indeed, Phillips and Toms conjectured that the comparison radius of should equal half of the mean dimension of .
Many results in this direction have been obtained: For free minimal -actions, if is finite dimensional (hence the dynamical system has mean dimension zero), it was shown in [43] that the algebra has finite nuclear dimension; therefore the C*-algebra has strict comparison of positive elements, and the radius of comparison is zero. Still with the assumption that is finite dimensional, this result was generalized to free minimal actions by in [39] or by a group with comparison property in [28].
Without assuming to be finite dimensional, for a free minimal -action with zero mean dimension, it was shown in [15] that the crossed product C*-algebra absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra (and therefore has finite nuclear dimension by [16]). In particular, this implies that the comparison radius is [math]. For free minimal -actions without zero mean dimension, Phillips showed in [36] that the radius of comparison of is at most .
The argument in [43], [15], or [36] relies on the Putnam’s orbit-cutting algebra (or the large sub-algebra) ; and in the case of zero mean dimension, the argument in [15] also heavily depends on the small boundary property (which is equivalent to mean dimension zero in the case of -actions).
However, beyond the -action case, it is not clear in general how to construct large sub-algebras; moreover, once the dynamical system does not have mean dimension zero, the small boundary property does not hold anymore.
To deal with these difficulties, in this paper we consider the following properties of the dynamical systems and the crossed product C*-algebras:
- •
Uniform Rokhlin Property (URP). The topological dynamical system is said to have Uniform Rokhlin Property (URP) if there exist disjoint towers with shapes arbitrarily invariant and all level sets are open, such that the complement of the towers has arbitrarily small orbit capacity (see Definition 3.1).
- •
Cuntz comparison of open sets (COS). Consider the C*-algebra . Note that any open set represents a Cuntz equivalence class of and hence a Cuntz equivalence class of . Denote it by . Then the dynamical system is said to have Cuntz comparison of open sets (COS) if there are and such that for any open sets
[TABLE]
for all ergodic measures , one has that
[TABLE]
in the Cuntz semigroup of . (See Definition 4.1.)
A consequence of the (URP) is that the crossed product C*-algebra can be (weakly) tracially approximated by homogeneous C*-algebras with dimension ratio at most the mean dimension of (see Theorem 3.9); roughly speaking, any element of can be approximately decomposed as the (not necessary orthogonal) sum of an element in a homogeneous C*-algebra with dimension ratio at most and an element which is uniformly small under all traces (i.e., under all ergodic measures).
This tracial approximation property, together with Cuntz comparison of open sets, implies that the radius of comparison of the crossed product C*-algebra is at most half of the mean dimension:
Theorem** (Theorem 4.8).**
Let be a free and minimal topological dynamical system satisfying the (URP) and (COS). Then,
[TABLE]
All minimal -actions have the (URP) (see Lemma 3.6); and if is an extension of a free minimal system with small boundary property, it has the (URP) (see Corollary 3.8).
To investigate when has the (COS), small subgroupoids of are considered. These are the open and relatively compact subgroupoids of , and they can be regarded as a local version of the orbit-cutting subalgebra . It is well known that the C*-algebra of a small subgroupoid is subhomogeneous (i.e., the dimensions of its irreducible representations are uniformly bounded).
It turns out that the C*-algebra of a small subgroupoid is rather special: it is a recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebra with diagonal maps (see Theorem 6.15); and with a revised argument of [15], the Cuntz class of diagonal elements of such a C*-algebra are shown to be determined by their ranks (see Theorem 7.8), provided that the dimensions of the irreducible representations are sufficiently large, but regardless of the topological dimension of its spectrum.
This comparison property of diagonal elements leads to a Cuntz comparison of open sets for : if is amenable and has small subgroupoids with each orbit arbitrarily invariant, then the dynamical system has the Cuntz-comparison property on open sets (see Corollary 7.13). Such small subgroupoids always exist if
- •
, or
- •
is an extension of a free Cantor system and has subexponential growth.
Therefore, in these cases, the dynamical system has the (COS) (see Corollary 7.9 and Corollary 8.11); in particular, the estimate (1.1) holds (see Corollary 7.10 and Corollary 8.12).
Remark 1.1*.*
In [33], using the adding-one-dimension and going-down argument of [23], the (COS) and (URP) (and hence the estimate (1.1)) are obtained for arbitrary minimal and free -actions. Hence (1.1) holds for all minimal free -actions.
In [34], still under the assumption of the (COS) and (URP), it is shown that implies that the C*-algebra is classified by its Elliott invariant.
2. Notation and preliminaries
2.1. Topological Dynamical Systems
Definition 2.1**.**
A topological dynamical system consists of a separable compact Hausdorff space , a discrete group , and a homomorphism , where is the group of homeomorphisms of , acting on from the right. In this paper, we frequently omit the word topological, and just refer it as a dynamical system.
The dynamical system is said to be free if implies , where and .
A closed set is said to be invariant if
[TABLE]
and the dynamical system is said to be minimal if and are the only invariant closed subsets.
If , then is induced by a single homeomorphism of , which is still denoted by . In this case, the dynamical system is denoted by .
Remark 2.2*.*
In the case , it is well known that is minimal if and only if one of the following holds:
- (1)
if is closed and , then or ; 2. (2)
for any , the forward orbit is dense; 3. (3)
for any , the orbit is dense; 4. (4)
for any non-empty open set , there is such that
[TABLE]
Definition 2.3**.**
A Borel measure on is invariant if for any Borel set , one has
[TABLE]
Denote by the set of all invariant Borel probability measures on . It is a Choquet simplex under the weak* topology.
Definition 2.4**.**
Let be a (countable) discrete group. Let be a finite set and let . Then a finite set is said to be -invariant if
[TABLE]
The group is amenable if there is a sequence of finite subsets of such that for any , the set is -invariant if is sufficiently large. The sequence is called a Følner sequence.
The -interior of a finite set is defined as
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
and hence for any , if is -invariant, then
[TABLE]
Definition 2.5** (see [32]).**
Consider a topological dynamical system , where is amenable, and let . The orbit capacity of is defined by
[TABLE]
where is a Følner sequence, and is the characteristic function of . The limit always exists and is independent from the choice of the Følner sequence .
Remark 2.6*.*
Orbit capacity has the following properties:
- (1)
If is a closed set, then if and only if , . 2. (2)
The orbit capacity is semicontinuous in the sense that for any closed set and any , there is an open neighbourhood such that .
Definition 2.7** (see [21] and [32]).**
Let be an open cover of . Define
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and means that, for any , there is with .
Consider a topological dynamical system , where is a discrete amenable group. The mean topological dimension is defined by
[TABLE]
where runs over all finite open covers of , is a Følner sequence (the limit is independent from the choice of ), and denotes the open cover
[TABLE]
for any open covers and .
Note that in the case , one has
[TABLE]
Remark 2.8*.*
It is shown in [5] that, if is a countable infinite amenable group, then each number in can be realized as the mean dimension of a minimal dynamical system .
2.2. Crossed product C*-algebras
Consider a topological dynamical system . The (full) crossed product C*-algebra is defined to be the universal C*-algebra
[TABLE]
The C*-algebra is nuclear (Corollary 7.18 of [44]) if is amenable. If, moreover, is minimal and topologically free, the C*-algebra is simple (Theorem 5.16 of [8] and Théorème 5.15 of [45]), i.e., has no non-trivial two-sided ideals.
2.3. Comparison for positive elements of a C*-algebra
Definition 2.9**.**
Let be a C*-algebra, and let . We say that is Cuntz sub-equivalent to , denoted by , if there are , , , such that
[TABLE]
and we say that is Cuntz equivalent to if and .
Denote by the C*-algebra of matrices over . Regard as the upper-left conner of , denote by
[TABLE]
the algebra of all finite matrices over , and denote by the standard (unbounded) trace of .
Let be a tracial state. Then define the rank function
[TABLE]
where is the Borel measure induced by on , the spectrum of .
It is well known that for any for some , if , then
[TABLE]
Example 2.10*.*
Consider and let be a Borel probability measure on . Then
[TABLE]
where is the trace of defined by
[TABLE]
Let be positive functions, and define the open sets
[TABLE]
Then if, and only if, . That is, the Cuntz equivalence classes of and are determined by their open supports.
For each open set , pick a continuous function satisfying
[TABLE]
For instance, one can pick , where is a compatible metric on . The notation will be used throughout the paper. Note that the Cuntz equivalence class of is independent of the choice of the individual function .
Definition 2.11**.**
Let , where is a C*-algebra, and let . Define
[TABLE]
where .
The following is a frequently used fact on Cuntz comparison.
Lemma 2.12** (Section 2 of [38]).**
Let be positive elements of a C-algebra . Then if and only if for all .*
Definition 2.13** (Definition 6.1 of [40]).**
The radius of comparison of a unital C*-algebra , denoted by , is the infimum of the set of real numbers such that if satisfy
[TABLE]
then , where is the simplex of tracial states. (In [40], the radius of comparison is defined in terms of quasitraces instead of traces; but since all the algebras considered in this paper are nuclear, by [24], any quasitrace actually is a trace.)
Example 2.14*.*
Let be a compact Hausdorff space. Then
[TABLE]
where is the topological covering dimension of (a lower bound of in terms of cohomological dimension is given in [12]).
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the dynamical version of (2.2) holds, that is, whether one has
[TABLE]
3. Uniform Rokhlin property and structure of
Let us first consider a Rokhlin property for a dynamical system . It turns out that this Rokhlin property implies that the crossed-product C*-algebra can be weakly tracially approximated by (not necessary unital) homogeneous C*-algebras.
3.1. Uniform Rokhlin Property
Definition 3.1**.**
A topological dynamical system , where is a discrete amenable group, is said to have Uniform Rokhlin Property (URP) if for any and any finite set , there exist closed sets and -invariant sets such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint and
[TABLE]
In fact, in the definition of the (URP), the base sets can also be assumed to be open:
Lemma 3.2**.**
A topological dynamical system has (URP) if, and only if, it satisfies Definition 3.1 but with , …, being open sets, instead.
Proof.
Let be given. Assume there exist closed sets and -invariant sets such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint and
[TABLE]
Since each , , is compact, one can choose an open neighbourhood of such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint. Then
[TABLE]
and thus satisfies Definition 3.1 with open base sets.
For the converse, assume there exist open sets and -invariant sets such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint and
[TABLE]
Consider the closed set . It has an open neighbourhood such that (see Remark 2.6), and there is a closed subset , , such that
[TABLE]
Indeed, can be chosen as (note that is closed in , , and each is open; so each set is closed in ). Then the closed sets satisfy Definition 3.1 (with base sets closed). ∎
Theorem 3.3** (Theorem 5.5 of [28]).**
If is free and has small boundary property, then has the (URP).
Remark 3.4*.*
In the case that , it follows from Theorem 1.10.1 of [22], that if is an extension of free dynamical system with the small boundary property, then it has the Topological Rokhlin Property in the sense of 1.9 of [22] (actually, the proof of 1.10.1 of [22] shows that the dynamical system has the (URP)).
Remark 3.5*.*
The level sets of the towers obtained in [28] actually have arbitrarily small diameter, and this is referred by the authors as the property of almost finiteness in measure (Definition 3.5 of [28]). This property is shown to be equivalent to the small boundary property (Theorem 5.5 of [28]). In the case that is a Cantor set, the result is also obtained in [6].
It follows from Corollary 3.4 of [31] that any free minimal -action has the (URP):
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a homeomorphism, and assume that is an extension of a free minimal system. Then, for any , any , there is a closed set such that
[TABLE]
are disjoint and
[TABLE]
In particular, has the (URP) (with ).
Proof.
Let and be arbitrary. It follows from Corollary 3.4 of [31] that there is a continuous function such that
[TABLE]
Consider the level sets
[TABLE]
and the (open) set
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
and define
[TABLE]
For each , since , is eventually empty, the set is closed, and hence the set is closed as well. Since
[TABLE]
and , , …, are mutually disjoint, one has that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint. Thus, , , …, form a tower.
Let us estimate . Note that
[TABLE]
and hence by (3.1),
[TABLE]
Therefore, for any , one has
[TABLE]
and thus, together with (3.2),
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Lemma 3.7**.**
If a dynamical system is an extension of a dynamical system which is free and has the (URP), then has the (URP).
Proof.
Denote the quotient map from to by . Note that for any set , one has . Since has the (URP), for any and any finite set , there exist closed sets and -invariant sets such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint and
[TABLE]
Then the closed sets
[TABLE]
together with , , form disjoint Rokhlin towers of with complement of orbit capacity at most . ∎
Since any free topological dynamical system with the small boundary property has the (URP) (Theorem 5.5 of [28]; see Theorem 3.3 above), one has the following corollary.
Corollary 3.8**.**
If a topological dynamical system is an extension of a free dynamical system with small boundary property, then has the (URP). In particular, if is an extension of a free minimal Cantor system, has the (URP).
3.2. A tracial approximation structure for
Considering a topological dynamical system with the (URP), let us show that the C*-algebra can be (weakly) tracially approximated by (not necessarily unital) homogeneous C*-algebras with dimension ratio almost dominated by the mean dimension of .
Theorem 3.9**.**
Let be a dynamical system with the (URP). The C-algebra has the following property: For any finite set (where ), with , for a closed set , and any , there exist a positive element with , a sub-C*-algebra with for some and some locally compact Hausdorff spaces together with compact subsets , , , and such that if , then*
- (1)
, , ; 2. (2)
, ; 3. (3)
, , and , ; 4. (4)
, ; 5. (5)
, ; 6. (6)
under the isomorphism , one has
[TABLE]
where runs through ; 7. (7)
under the isomorphism , the element has the form
[TABLE]
where , and
[TABLE]
In particular, one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE] 8. (8)
still under the isomorphism , any diagonal element of actually is in , and if is an diagonal element satisfying , , then, as an element of ,
[TABLE]
Before proving Theorem 3.9, we have the following two lemmas on partition of unity, which are elementary and might be well known.
Lemma 3.10**.**
Let be open subsets of , where is a separable locally compact Hausdorff space. Let be a compact subset of . Then there are continuous functions , , such that
- (1)
, , 2. (2)
, .
Proof.
Pick open sets , , such that and . Pick continuous functions such that
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
It is clear that , . Note that
[TABLE]
and hence by (3.3),
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Lemma 3.11**.**
Let be a separable compact Hausdorff space, and let and be two finite collections of open subsets such that forms a cover of . Assume there are continuous functions , such that
- (1)
, , 2. (2)
, , and 3. (3)
.
Then, there are continuous functions , , such that
[TABLE]
form a partition of unity subordinate to .
Proof.
Consider the function
[TABLE]
and list . Since , there are open sets , , …, such that , , …, and
[TABLE]
Pick continuous functions , , …, such that , , .
Define
[TABLE]
It is clear that . Moreover,
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
and then by (3.4),
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
form a partition of unity subordinate to , as desired. ∎
The following lemma particularly asserts that each Rokhlin tower corresponds to a matrix algebra over the C*-algebra of the base set.
Lemma 3.12**.**
Let be a C-algebra. Let be unitaries with , and let be a finite set. Assume that*
[TABLE]
Then there is an isomorphism
[TABLE]
under which
[TABLE]
Proof.
Denote by , and consider
[TABLE]
Note that is isomorphic to by (3.5).
Embed into the enveloping von Neumann algebra . Let be a strictly positive element of with norm , and let denote the w*-limit of , , in . Then is an (open) projection with , .
Consider
[TABLE]
Then, it follows from (3.5) that ; that is, the elements form a system matrix unit, and thus the C*-algebra generated by is isomorphic to .
For any , by (3.5), one has
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
That is, and commute, and , which equals , acts on as the unit. Therefore the C*-algebra generated by and is unital and is isomorphic to the tensor product , where is the unitization of .
Since
[TABLE]
the C*-algebra is a sub-C*-algebra of generated by products of and , which is exactly the sub-C*-algebra . ∎
Proof of Theorem 3.9.
It is enough to show the theorem for , i.e., . For the case , write where , and then apply the theorem with and in place of and respectively, together with the given function and the given closed set .
Without loss of generality, one may assume
[TABLE]
for some finite set with , and some . Denote by
[TABLE]
Since is compact, there is an open cover such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Pick a natural number
[TABLE]
and pick a finite set and so that if a finite set is -invariant, then
[TABLE]
For any , denote by the Dirac measure concentrated at ; and for any finite set , denote by .
One may then again assume is sufficiently large and is sufficiently small so that if a finite set is -invariant, then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since has the (URP), there exist closed sets and -invariant sets such that
[TABLE]
are mutually disjoint and
[TABLE]
For each , , pick such that
[TABLE]
For each , , choose open sets such that , , and
[TABLE]
are disjoint.
Consider
[TABLE]
It is an open cover of with order at most . Also consider
[TABLE]
Then their union
[TABLE]
forms an open cover of , and denote this open cover by .
Pick an open cover of the closed set such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
forms an open cover of .
Pick an open set such that and
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.10, there are functions , , satisfying
- (1)
, , 2. (2)
, .
Translate these functions to , , and by Lemma 3.11, there is a partition of unity subordinate to in the form of
[TABLE]
Consider the sub-C*-algebra
[TABLE]
A straightforward calculation shows that if , then, for any ,
[TABLE]
Hence, by Lemma 3.12, is isomorphic to
[TABLE]
and the set of diagonal elements of under this isomorphism consists of
[TABLE]
For each , consider the set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
and by Lemma 4.3 of [15],
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
and this verifies Property (4).
Now, let be a diagonal element satisfying , , with respect to the isomorphism above. Then, by (3.13) and (3.14), one has that, as an element of ,
[TABLE]
and by (3.10),
[TABLE]
This, together with (3.13), verifies Property (8).
For each , define
[TABLE]
It is clear that , ,
[TABLE]
For each , , define the subsets (see Definition 2.4 for the notation )
[TABLE]
Then, for any , one has
[TABLE]
Indeed, pick an arbitrary . By the construction, one has
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
and hence (since ).
Thus, to show (3.16), one only has to show that . Suppose . Since is symmetric, one has ; hence and
[TABLE]
which contradicts (3.17).
Also note that for each ,
[TABLE]
For each , define
[TABLE]
By (3.16) and (3.18), the function satisfies
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and this proves Property (5).
It follows from Lemma 3.12 that under the isomorphism one has
[TABLE]
Denote the diagonal functions by , , .
Note that , . Therefore, for any , , where , one has
[TABLE]
This verifies Property (7).
Note that, by the construction of (see (3.12)),
[TABLE]
Also note that, for each and each , , one has that . Hence
[TABLE]
and therefore,
[TABLE]
Also note that, for each , by (3.19) and (3.7),
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
For each , pick a point . For each , define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and the same argument shows that
[TABLE]
This verified Properties (1).
Moreover, note that for any , either (in the case that )
[TABLE]
or is contained inside some . Since
[TABLE]
for any , and since
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
since , , and , (see (3.20)). The same argument shows that . This verifies Properties (3). By (3.21) and (3.2), Property (2) follows.
For Property (6), pick an arbitrary . By (3.8),
[TABLE]
Since , and , , one has that
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Thus, regarding as an element of , one has (by (3.23)) that, for any (with for some ),
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
4. Comparison of open sets, comparison radius, and mean topological dimension
Definition 4.1**.**
Consider a topological dynamical system , where is a compact Hausdorff space and is a discrete amenable group. It is said to have -Cuntz-comparison on open sets, where and , if for any open sets with
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
The dynamical system is said to have Cuntz comparison on Open Sets (COS) if it has -Cuntz-comparison on open sets for some and .
Let be a minimal free dynamical system. Assume that has the (URP) and (COS). The main result of this section is that the comparison radius of is at most (see Theorem 4.8).
First, one needs some preparations. Let , where is a C*-algebra, and let . Recall that (Definition 2.11)
[TABLE]
where . Note
[TABLE]
and also note that, by Proposition 2.2 of [38], if , then These facts are used throughout this section.
Let be a free dynamical system, and assume that is a conditional expectation, where is a crossed-product C*-algebra. Then
[TABLE]
Indeed, let and consider . Note that for all , since , one has
[TABLE]
Assume . Then there is such that . Since is free, one has . Pick such that and . Then
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction.
Then, one has the following lemma, which is similar to Lemma 3.1 of [13].
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let be a free topological dynamical system, where is a discrete group. Let be a crossed product C-algebra with a faithful conditional expectation (the faithful conditional expectation exists if is amenable, see, for instance, Proposition 4.1.9 of [1]). Let be a nonzero positive element. Then, there is a positive nonzero element such that .*
Proof.
Since is faithful, one may assume that . One asserts that for arbitrary , there is such that and
[TABLE]
Then satisfies the statement of the lemma.
Let us prove the assertion. Without loss of generality, one may assume
[TABLE]
Since is free, by (4.1), one has that . Since , there is a point such that ; since the action is free, there is such that , , and
[TABLE]
Then is the desired function. ∎
Lemma 4.3**.**
Let be a dynamical system with the (URP), and assume that .
Then, for any and any , there is a positive element such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, can be chosen to have the form for some together with a closed set such that , , and
[TABLE]
where runs through , is the integer part of , and is the decimal part of .
Proof.
First note that since , it has the property that for any Følner sequence , . Otherwise, if there is a Følner sequence and such that , , then, for any finite with and , since is -invariant for sufficiently large and , one has that for sufficiently large . But , which contradicts to the choice of .
Also note that one only has to prove the lemma for a rational number with and (one does not require that ).
Assume . Since has the (URP), there exist closed sets and -invariant sets such that
- (1)
, , are disjoint, and 2. (2)
Note that , …, can be chosen so that
[TABLE]
Pick open sets , , so that
[TABLE]
are disjoint. By (4.2), there are , , such that
[TABLE]
Put
[TABLE]
Then, by (4.3), for any ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then the function satisfies the lemma (with and ).
For general , pick to satisfy the lemma for ; and the element
[TABLE]
satisfies the lemma. ∎
Definition 4.4**.**
A positive element of a C*-algebra is said to be compact if for some .
Note that if is a compact element, then is Cuntz equivalent to the spectral projection where satisfies .
Lemma 4.5**.**
Let be a finite C-algebra, and let be nonzero positive elements of with . Assume either*
- (1)
* is not compact, or* 2. (2)
* is not compact, or,* 3. (3)
* is not Cuntz equivalent to .*
Then, for any , there are nonzero positive elements such that
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, and 3. (3)
.
Proof.
Assume that for all (that is, is not a compact element). Then, for the arbitrarily given , there is such that . Then, and , where , are desired elements.
Now, assume that is not compact, and one may also assume that is a compact element, and without loss of generality, one may assume that is a nonzero projection. For the arbitrarily given , there is such that is Cuntz equivalent to (in particular, ).
If is not a compact element, then is not a compact element neither. By the argument for the case that is not a compact element, there are such that
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, and 3. (3)
.
Since , the elements satisfy the lemma.
If is a compact element (so and can be assumed to be projections), since is assumed not to be a compact element, one has that but not equivalent to , and hence (since is finite). Hence the elements ( is assumed to be a projection) and satisfy the lemma.
For the remaining case that and are non-equivalent compact elements, one may assume that are projections such that but . Then and satisfy the lemma. ∎
Lemma 4.6**.**
For any and any nonzero (for some ), where is a C-algebra, there is , such that for any with satisfying*
- (1)
, for some , 2. (2)
, and 3. (3)
, , , are in a sub-C-algebra ,*
there is such that
- (1)
* in , and* 2. (2)
* in .*
Proof.
Set
[TABLE]
For each , define the positive function
[TABLE]
Choose sufficiently small such that
[TABLE]
for any with and . Note that the choice of only depends on , , and . Indeed, pick a polynomial such that
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
if , and hence
[TABLE]
One asserts that this satisfies the conclusion of the lemma.
Let satisfy the conditions of the lemma. Then, by (4.4), with
[TABLE]
( is a well-defined continuous function on ), one has
[TABLE]
Hence, together with the assumption of the lemma,
[TABLE]
Since and , , one has that
[TABLE]
(the functions and take value [math] at [math]), and hence , and
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
By (4.5), one has
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
in the algebra . Since
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
in the algebra . Then has the desired property. ∎
The following lemma is well know. A proof is included for reader’s convenience.
Lemma 4.7**.**
Let be a simple non-elementary C-algebra, and let be arbitrary. Then there are nonzero positive elements which are mutually orthogonal and mutually Cuntz equivalent.*
Proof.
Since is non-elementary, it contains a positive element with spectrum containing infinitely many points, and hence there are nonzero positive elements which are mutually orthogonal.
Consider and . Since is simple, for any , there are , for some such that In particular, with sufficiently small, there is such that . Note that
[TABLE]
With the polar decomposition of and a functional calculus, one may assume that there is a positive element with norm one such that
[TABLE]
Replacing by and respectively, one obtains nonzero positive elements
[TABLE]
which are mutually orthogonal and . Moreover, there is a positive element with norm one such that
[TABLE]
Using the simplicity again, the same argument as above shows that there is such that
[TABLE]
and, moreover, there is a positive element with norm one such that
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore, replacing , and by , and respectively, one obtains positive elements
[TABLE]
which are mutually orthogonal and , and . Moreover, there is a positive element with norm one such that .
Repeating this argument finitely many times, one obtains nonzero positive elements
[TABLE]
which are mutually orthogonal and elements such that
[TABLE]
Then the elements clearly satisfy the lemma. ∎
Theorem 4.8**.**
Let be a free and minimal topological dynamical system satisfying the (URP) and (COS).
Let be non-zero positive elements of such that
[TABLE]
for some . Then . In other words,
[TABLE]
Proof.
One only has to prove the statement for . In the case that is a finite group, since the action is minimal, one has that the system is conjugate to the action of on itself by translation. Hence has mean topological dimension zero and , which has zero radius of comparison. In particular, the statement of the theorem holds.
Let us assume that . Moreover, without loss of generality, one may assume that .
Pick and some such that
[TABLE]
Since , by Lemma 4.3 (with and ), there is a positive element such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
for any . Moreover, by Lemma 4.3, can be chosen such that
[TABLE]
for a positive function , some integer , and on a closed set with
[TABLE]
where runs through .
Pick such that .
Since is nuclear, all quasitraces are traces. By Theorem 4.3 of [38], any lower semicontinuous dimension function of has the form for some .
Since is minimal, the C*-algebra is simple. Hence the Cuntz class of is a strong order unit of the Cuntz semigroup of (see Proposition 4.2 of [3]). By (4.7) and the proof of Proposition 3.2 of [38], there is such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, one may assume that is not Cuntz equivalent to .
Let be arbitrary, by Lemma 4.5, there are nonzero positive elements and such that
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, and 3. (3)
By (3), there is such that
[TABLE]
Since has the (COS), the C*-algebra has -Cuntz-comparison of open sets for some and . Fix and .
Consider the nonzero positive element . Since is simple and non-elementary, the hereditary C*-algebra generated by is also simple and non-elementary. By Lemma 4.7, there are mutually orthogonal nonzero positive elements in the hereditary C*-algebra generated by such that are mutually Cuntz equivalent. By Lemma 4.2, there exists a nonzero positive element such that , and hence there are nonzero positive elements such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By (4.9), there is (for some ) such that
[TABLE]
Let be the constant of Lemma 4.6 with respect to and . Moreover, can be chosen so that
[TABLE]
and if for some positive elements in some C*-algebra with , then
[TABLE]
Applying Theorem 3.9 with in place of , in place of (note that the value of at any point of is at least ), and in place of , there are
[TABLE]
for some with , and a sub-C*-algebra and for locally compact metrizable spaces together with a compact set such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
and, under the isomorphism ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, still under the isomorphism , if is an diagonal element satisfying , , then , and
[TABLE]
Note that, by (4.20), (4.21) and (4.8), for any ,
[TABLE]
Then, since ( is assumed to be at most ), by (4.19), one has that for any ,
[TABLE]
Since has -comparison on open sets, it follows from (4.18) that
[TABLE]
Note that, without loss of generality, one may assume that . By (4.11), (4.13), and (4.14),
[TABLE]
together with (4.15) and (4.17), it follows from Lemma 4.6 that there is
[TABLE]
in and
[TABLE]
in . By (4.25),
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (4),
[TABLE]
and by Theorem 4.6 of [41],
[TABLE]
There is then a positive central element with for some (and ) such that , , and
[TABLE]
in . Since , , by (4.22) and -comparison, one has
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Therefore, together with (4.15) and (4.12),
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrarily small, one has that , as desired. ∎
5. Recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebras with diagonal maps
In the rest of paper, let us investigate Cuntz-comparison of Open Sets (COS) for a given dynamical system . Let us start with a special class of concrete C*-algebras which will appear naturally as the C*-algebras of small subgroupoids of a transformation groupoid (see Section 6). Any C*-algebra in this class enjoys a comparison property of diagonal elements (see Theorem 7.8), and this eventually leads to the (COS) for if small subgroupoids with arbitrary large orbits exist (see Corollary 7.13).
Recall that
Definition 5.1** ([35]).**
The class of recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebras (RSH algebras) is the smallest class of C*-algebras which is closed under isomorphism and such that:
- (1)
if is a compact Hausdorff space and , then , 2. (2)
is closed under the following pull back construction: if , is a compact Hausdorff space, is closed, is any unital homomorphism, and is the restriction homomorphism, then the pullback
[TABLE]
is in .
From the definition, it is clear that any recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebra can be written in the form
[TABLE]
with for compact Hausdorff spaces and positive integers , with for compact subsets (possible empty), and where the maps are always the restriction maps. An expression of this type will be referred to as a decomposition of , and the notation used here will be referred to as the standard notation for a decomposition.
The RSH algebras considered in this paper will have the gluing maps being of diagonal type:
Definition 5.2**.**
Let
[TABLE]
be an RSH algebra. A homomorphism , where is a compact metrizable space, is said to be of diagonal type if there is a partition
[TABLE]
such that for each , there are continuous maps , , …, for some such that
[TABLE]
where
Consider the crossed product C*-algebra , and consider a closed set with nonempty interior. The Putnam sub-C*-algebra is an RSH with diagonal maps in a natural way. The construction was introduced in [25] for being the Cantor set and then was generalized in [29] for a general . (More examples will be constructed in the next section using groupoids.)
Definition 5.3**.**
Let be a closed subset of with non-empty interior. The C*-algebra is defined by
[TABLE]
Let us collect some basic properties of this sub-C*-algebra:
Consider the first return times
[TABLE]
Since is minimal, is compact, and has a non-empty interior, this set of numbers is finite; let us write it as
[TABLE]
for some . Since is an infinite set and is minimal, the first return time is arbitrarily large if is sufficiently small.
For each , consider the (locally compact—see below) subset of
[TABLE]
Then the sets
[TABLE]
—which are naturally listed as shown—form a partition of . This is often called a Rokhlin partition.
Lemma 5.4** ([29]; see also [30] or Lemma 2.15 of [36]).**
*In terms of the notation introduced above, one has that, for each ,
the set is closed (and so is locally compact),
the set is the disjoint union of the subsets*
[TABLE]
where for some .
A quite explicit description of the subalgebra of the crossed product, a C*-algebra of type I, was obtained by Q. Lin ([29]). It is a subhomogeneous algebra of order at most . In fact, it is an RSH algebra with all gluing maps being diagonal.
Theorem 5.5** ([29]; see also [30] or Theorem 2.22 of [36]).**
In terms of the notation introduced above, one has that the C-algebra is isomorphic to the sub-C*-algebra of consisting of the elements with*
[TABLE]
whenever
[TABLE]
where .
Moreover, for any with , the images of in this identification are
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
respectively.
6. Small subgroupoids and recursive subhomogeneous C*-algebras
In this section, let us consider a class of small subgroupoid of the transformation groupoid . It turns out that the C*-algebra of a such subgroupoid is an RSH algebra with diagonal maps.
Consider a topological dynamical system . Recall that (see Example 1.2.a of [37]) the transformation groupoid is defined by taking with
- (1)
, , , 2. (2)
if , and 3. (3)
, .
The topology on is the product topology on . Note that , regarded as , is the unit space of , and is principle if is free.
Definition 6.1**.**
A small subgroupoid is a subgroupoid which is open, relatively compact, and
It is well known that the C*-algebra is subhomogeneous if is small subgroupoid. Using the orbit structure of , let us show that actually is an RSH-algebra with diagonal maps.
Consider
[TABLE]
Since is relatively compact, one has that
[TABLE]
Since the unit space of the subgroupoid is , it induces an equivalence relation on by
[TABLE]
For each , define
[TABLE]
It is clear that
[TABLE]
Definition 6.2**.**
Let be any subgroupoid, and let . Define the shape of to be
[TABLE]
Remark 6.3*.*
Note that since , , one has
[TABLE]
The function has the following properties.
Lemma 6.4**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a relatively compact subgroupoid of . Then
- (1)
, ; 2. (2)
, ; 3. (3)
if , then
[TABLE]
i.e., if , then where .
Proof.
Note that , if and only if, there is such that (hence ) and ; and the latter condition is equivalent to . This proves (2), and (1) follows from (2) by the freeness of the action.
Let , then . Since , one has that , and hence and . Therefore
Now, if , then , and hence . Since , one has
[TABLE]
and hence , as desired. ∎
Definition 6.5**.**
Let be a finite set containing . Define
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.6**.**
Let be open and relatively compact subgroupoid. Then, the function is lower semicontinuous in the following sense: for any , there is an open set such that
[TABLE]
Hence, for any finite subset , if and , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Write . Since is open, there is such that
[TABLE]
In particular this implies , , as desired. ∎
Definition 6.7**.**
Let . Define
[TABLE]
Remark 6.8*.*
Note that if where is a finite set, then the map induces a one-to-one correspondence between and .
For a small subgroupoid , there is a one-to-one correspondence between the orbits and the equivalence classes of the irreducible representations of .
Lemma 6.9** (Proposition 3.8 of [2]).**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a relatively compact subgroupoid. Let . The map
[TABLE]
where are the standard matrix units of , induces an irreducible representation of on (if ), still denoted by . Moreover, any irreducible representation of arises in this way, and if and only if is unitarily equivalent to .
Lemma 6.10**.**
Let be a relatively compact subgroupoid. For each finite set , there is a homeomorphism
[TABLE]
Proof.
Define the map
[TABLE]
and it is the desired homeomorphism. ∎
Lemma 6.11**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a relatively compact subgroupoid. Let be a finite set. Then there is a homomorphism
[TABLE]
by
[TABLE]
where are the standard matrix units over and being regarded as a function on .
Proof.
By Lemma 6.10, one has that is homeomorphic to . Then, for each , there is a unique such that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 6.9, for any , the map
[TABLE]
induces an irreducible representation of . Then, if , one has
[TABLE]
Regarding as the constant function , one has the homomorphism
[TABLE]
Note the function can be continuously extended to , and the evaluation at each is still a (but non-irreducible) representation of . ∎
Lemma 6.12**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a relatively compact subgroupoid with unit space . Since the unit space of is , one has the decomposition
[TABLE]
where are finite subsets of . Then the map
[TABLE]
is an injection.
Proof.
Note that any irreducible representation of factors though , and hence must be injective. ∎
Lemma 6.13**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a small subgroupoid. Let be a finite set with , and let . Then there are finite sets and such that , ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The decomposition of is unique (for the given ).
Proof.
Since the unit space of is , there is a partition
[TABLE]
such that if and only if for some .
One claims that , , whenever . Then the lemma follows.
For each and , let be . Since , there is such that . Since is open, one has that if is sufficiently close to . Since , there is such that . Note that , there is a sequence with as , and hence , as . In particular, for sufficiently large . Noting that (since and ), one has
[TABLE]
Hence , and as desired. ∎
Corollary 6.14**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a small groupoid. With the notation as above, one has that for any ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that if and with , then . Otherwise, , which contradicts the fact that and . In particular, for any , one has
[TABLE]
It then follows from Lemma 6.11 that for any ,
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Theorem 6.15**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, let be a small subgroupoid, and let be an open set. Then there is an isomorphism
[TABLE]
where for a set which is a disjoint union of finitely many closed subsets of , and with a closed subset of , such that
- (1)
, 2. (2)
all the maps are of diagonal type, where
[TABLE] 3. (3)
under this isomorphism and the RSH-decomposition, the element is a diagonal matrix on each and
[TABLE]
where is defined in (2.1).
Proof.
Decompose into
[TABLE]
where are finite subsets of . By Lemma 6.12, there is an embedding
[TABLE]
Reindex into
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Put
[TABLE]
Note that the sets , , considered as subsets of , might have non-empty intersections; but one takes the abstract disjoint union in the construction of . Also note that
[TABLE]
and is a closed subset of (follows from Lemma 6.6).
By Lemma 6.13, each has a partition
[TABLE]
such that for each , there is a decomposition
[TABLE]
with such that
[TABLE]
and the decomposition of is different for each .
For each , , consider the map
[TABLE]
and with all of these maps, one has the RSH algebra
[TABLE]
with , , and all the maps are of diagonal type.
By Corollary 6.14, one has . One the other hand, the embedding map induces a one-to-one correspondence between the irreducible representations of and the irreducible representations of . Thus is a rich subalgebra of , and hence (see Theorem 11.1.6 of [4]).
Consider the open set and the function . Then, for each ,
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
7. Comparison of diagonal elements and comparison of open sets
In this section, let us show that the Cuntz comparison of the diagonal elements in an RSH-algebra with diagonal maps is roughly determined by their ranks (see Theorem 7.8), regardless of the dimensions of the base spaces. As a consequence, the Cuntz comparison of open subsets of is then determined by the partial orbit or by the measures if there exist small subgroupoids with arbitrarily large orbit (see Corollary 7.12 and Corollary 7.13). The proof of the main result of this section (Theorem 7.8) follows closely the argument of Theorem 4.5 of [15].
First, recall the following comparison theorem for general RSH algebras, .
Theorem 7.1** (Theorem 4.6 of [41]).**
Let be a recursive subhomogeneous C-algebras with a decomposition*
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
with a closed subset of . Let be positive elements satisfying
[TABLE]
for any . Then .
Using this theorem, one has the following comparison result.
Proposition 7.2**.**
Let be a separable RSH algebra with a fixed decomposition
[TABLE]
and let be positive elements of . Write
[TABLE]
with a closed subset of .
For each , list
[TABLE]
and set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
**
Assume that for each and each ,
[TABLE]
Then in .
Proof.
Let us construct a new RSH decomposition of :
[TABLE]
with and with a closed subset of such that
[TABLE]
in this new RSH decomposition. Then, it follows from Theorem 7.1 that .
To building the new RSH decomposition, let us start with
[TABLE]
Since the rank function is lower semicontinuous, one has that
[TABLE]
are closed. (Note that .)
Set
[TABLE]
with the map being the identity map. Then it is clear that
[TABLE]
Putting
[TABLE]
and repeating this construction, one obtains the new RSH decomposition of by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It clearly satisfies (7.1).
Now, assume that one has a desired decomposition of
[TABLE]
let us construct the decomposition for which satisfies (7.1).
Write
[TABLE]
and denote by the homomorphism associated with the (original) RSH decomposition of .
Set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For the next stage, consider
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is regarded as the (well defined) function on
[TABLE]
which is on and is on .
At -th stage, set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
is regarded as the function on
[TABLE]
which is on and is on . It is well defined.
In this new RSH-decomposition, note that the base spaces are together with the closed subset . Note that
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
and it satisfies the condition (7.1). ∎
Definition 7.3**.**
Let be a separable RSH algebra with a fixed decomposition
[TABLE]
Write
[TABLE]
with a closed subset of . Let be a finite set such that if
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Then, for each , define the map by
[TABLE]
The following lemma shows that in an RSH algebra with diagonal maps, there always exist finitely many elements of such that these elements span the whole under any irreducible representation of but the topological dimension of the values of their entries is controlled by the dimension of the irreducible representations of . These elements play the same role as that of the element in the proof of Theorem 4.5 of [15].
Lemma 7.4**.**
Let be a separable RSH algebra with a fixed decomposition
[TABLE]
Write
[TABLE]
with a closed subset of . Assume
- (1)
, and 2. (2)
all the maps
[TABLE]
are of diagonal type, where
[TABLE]
Then there are finite sets
[TABLE]
*such that *
- (1)
[TABLE] 2. (2)
there are continuous functions
[TABLE]
such that and
[TABLE]
where are the standard matrix units of ; 3. (3)
and there are polyhedrons
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
Let us construct , , recursively. Consider
[TABLE]
and put
[TABLE]
where are matrix units of . Since consists of constant functions, is constant. Then it is clear that
[TABLE]
where is the constant value of , satisfy (7.2), (7.3), and (7.4) (with the constant function ).
Assume
[TABLE]
are constructed to satisfy (7.2), (7.3), and (7.4). Consider
[TABLE]
If , then . Define
[TABLE]
where are matrix units of . Then
[TABLE]
where and are regarded as subsets of naturally, and
[TABLE]
where is the constant value of on , satisfy (7.2), (7.3), and (7.4) (with the constant function ).
Assume that . Since the map is of diagonal type, there exist and a partition
[TABLE]
such that for each , there are continuous maps
[TABLE]
for some such that
[TABLE]
where Then it is clear that
[TABLE]
Let us estimate the dimension of . Let be the multiplicities of the map . Note that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since , one has that
[TABLE]
Hence, for each , one has
[TABLE]
Put
[TABLE]
By (7.5), one has
[TABLE]
Also note that
[TABLE]
For each element , consider . Since is a polyhedron, it is a neighborhood retraction; hence there is an open set such that there is an extension of to , denoted by , such that
[TABLE]
Pick a continuous function such that
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where are matrix units of . Then
[TABLE]
satisfies (7.2), (7.3), and (7.4) (for ).
Indeed, since , (7.2) is satisfied. Define
[TABLE]
Then, by (7.7),
[TABLE]
and by (7.6),
[TABLE]
So, (7.3) and (7.4) are satisfied (for ). By the induction, the desired finite sets exist. ∎
Remark 7.5*.*
The estimation which is needed later in Theorem 7.8 on the dimension of is actually
[TABLE]
But the stronger version (7.3) is needed for the induction argument.
Lemma 7.6**.**
Consider matrices
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and is the matrix with -entry and all other entries [math].
If there is a unitary satisfying
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that
[TABLE]
and hence . Consider a pair of matrices . Then, for any ,
[TABLE]
Since , one has that , as desired. ∎
Lemma 7.7** (Lemma 4.3 of [15]).**
Let be a second countable locally compact Hausdorff space, and let be a sub-C-algebra of .*
Suppose that there exist a topological space and a surjective continuous map such that
- (1)
for any ,
[TABLE]
if and only if
[TABLE]
where is the standard irreducible representation of at , 2. (2)
for any sequence in , any in , and any , if
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
and 3. (3)
, for any .
Then there is an isomorphism . Moreover, under this isomorphism, if is a closed subset of and is the restriction map, there is a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
where and is the restriction map.
Proof.
For each , define a function by
[TABLE]
By Condition (2), is well defined, and is continuous. Moreover, vanishes at infinity. To see this, note that, if with , then, since is surjective, there are with . Then . Otherwise, there is a subsequence, say , converging to a point . Since is continuous, one has that
[TABLE]
which contradicts the assumption . Hence
[TABLE]
and .
Moreover, it is clear that the map is an injective homomorphism, and thus one can regard as a sub-C*-algebra of . It follows from Conditions (1) and (3) that is a rich sub-C*-algebra of in the sense of Dixmier (11.1.1 of [4]), and therefore by Proposition 11.1.6 of [4] (or by Theorem 7.2 of [26]).
Note that the above construction also induces an isomorphism
[TABLE]
by with . Also note that for any , and any , one has
[TABLE]
Thus, the diagram commutes. ∎
The following is the main result of this section. Its proof is in the same line as that of Theorem 4.5 of [15]: One considers the sub-C*-algebra generated by the given elements , , and the finite set obtained from Lemma 7.4; then the resulting sub-C*-algebra actually has the dimension gap property of Proposition 7.2, and the comparison between and follows.
Theorem 7.8**.**
Let be a separable RSH algebra with a fixed decomposition
[TABLE]
and let be positive elements of . Write
[TABLE]
with a closed subset of . Assume
- (1)
, 2. (2)
* and are diagonal matrices on each ,* 3. (3)
all the maps , , are of diagonal type, where
[TABLE] 4. (4)
for each , and each ,
[TABLE]
Then .
Proof.
Write
[TABLE]
with , .
Let us construct sub-C*-algebras
[TABLE]
together with closed subsets () satisfying
[TABLE]
where , such that
[TABLE]
and if
[TABLE]
and define
[TABLE]
where then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
is a sub-C*-algebra of with ; by (7.10) and Proposition 7.2, one has , and this proves the theorem.
Let us construct the desired sub-C*-algebras recursively. By Lemma 7.4, there exist finite sets , where
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and there is a polyhedron such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
It clearly satisfies (7.9) (with ). (7.8) is also satisfied with . Set
[TABLE]
and consider the map
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Then, for any , the restriction of to is still irreducible, and by Lemma 7.6, one has that for any ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 7.7,
[TABLE]
Write
[TABLE]
where , and
[TABLE]
where Then
[TABLE]
Since and are diagonal and
[TABLE]
by the construction of ((7.15)), one has
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and for any ,
[TABLE]
Thus, the C*-algebra satisfies (7.10) (with ).
Let us assume that are constructed to satisfy (7.8) (with ), (7.9) (with ), and (7.10) (with ), and also assume that
[TABLE]
Let us construct . Define
[TABLE]
where are (constant) matrix units of . Set
[TABLE]
and consider
[TABLE]
and set
[TABLE]
Then, for any , the restriction of to is still irreducible, and by Lemma 7.6, for any ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 7.7, one has that and
[TABLE]
By (7.11),
[TABLE]
Then, by (7) and , one has
[TABLE]
and hence (7.8) is satisfied (with ).
Write
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
where Then
[TABLE]
Since and are diagonal and
[TABLE]
by the construction of ((7)), one has
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
and for any ,
[TABLE]
Thus, the C*-algebra satisfies (7.10) (with ).
Put
[TABLE]
and consider
[TABLE]
For the induction, we also need to show
[TABLE]
(Note that
[TABLE]
since ).
Indeed, set
[TABLE]
and let us show that actually
[TABLE]
Pick any point
[TABLE]
Since and (7.12), the restriction of to is still irreducible (with the same dimension), and hence any irreducible representation of or
[TABLE]
actually is a restriction of some . In particular, the restriction of any irreducible representation of
[TABLE]
to is still irreducible.
Let and be irreducible representations of which are not equivalent. If and are in different components, say, in and , , respectively, then the the restrictions of and to are not equivalent since they have different dimensions.
Assume that with . In particular, and are irreducible representations of
[TABLE]
Since and are not equivalent, one has that
[TABLE]
Since the restriction of to is the same as the restriction of to , one has
[TABLE]
Hence, by Lemma 7.6, the restrictions of and to are not equivalent.
Assume . If the restriction of and to are equivalent, then, by Lemma 7.6,
[TABLE]
Since matrix units are constant functions, one then has
[TABLE]
So, and are equivalent as representations of and hence are equivalent, which contradicts the assumption. Therefore, the restrictions of and to are not equivalent. Hence is a rich sub-C*-algebra, and therefore,
[TABLE]
by Proposition 11.1.6 of [4].
Therefore, by induction, there are C*-algebras satisfying (7.8), (7.9) and (7.10), and hence , as desired. ∎
The following are several corollaries of Theorem 7.8
Corollary 7.9**.**
Let be compact metrizable, and let be a minimal free homeomorphism. Suppose are open sets satisfying
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
in .
Proof.
Since is minimal, there is such that
[TABLE]
Let be arbitrary. One asserts that there is such that for any and any , one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Indeed, if the assertion were not true, there are and such that as , and for all , one has
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Consider the discrete probability measures
[TABLE]
where is the Dirac measure concentrated at . Pick an accumulation point in the weak*-topology. Note that . Passing to a subsequence, one assumes that .
Assume that (7) holds for infinitely many , pick a closed set such that
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
which contradicts to (7.20).
Assume that (7.22) holds for infinitely many . Since is open, then
[TABLE]
which contradicts the choice of . This proves the assertion.
Consider the C*-algebra , where is a closed subset with nonempty interior. By Theorem 5.5, is an RSH algebra with diagonal maps, and the canonical RSH decomposition of satisfies Conditions (1), (2), and (3) of Theorem 7.8. With sufficiently small, one can assume that the heights of the Rokhlin towers in the decomposition of are at least (so that ), and therefore, by the assertion, Conditions (4) of Theorem 7.8 is also satisfied. Thus, it follows from Theorem 7.8 that . Since is arbitrary, one has . ∎
Corollary 7.10**.**
Let be a separable compact Hausdorff space, and let be a minimal free homeomorphism. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 3.6, has the (URP). By Corollary 7.9, has -Cuntz-comparison on open sets. The statement then follows from Theorem 4.8. ∎
Remark 7.11*.*
Corollary 7.10 is generalized in [33] to -actions.
Corollary 7.12**.**
Let be a free dynamical system, and let be a small subgroupoid. Let be open sets such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then, in .
Proof.
This follows directly from Theorem 6.15 and Theorem 7.8. ∎
Corollary 7.13**.**
Let is a minimal free dynamical system, where is amenable. Assume that has the property that for any finite set and any , there is a small subgroupoid such that is -invariant for any . Then, for any open sets with
[TABLE]
one has that
[TABLE]
In other words, has -Cuntz-comparison of open sets.
Proof.
Without loss of generality, one may assume that . Otherwise, the C*-algebra is isomorphic to , and the statement holds.
Since is minimal, there is such that
[TABLE]
Let be arbitrary. With the same argument as that of Corollary 7.9, it follows from (7.23) that there exists such that if is -invariant, then for any , one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
If is a small subgroupoid with all orbits -invariant, it then follows from Corollary 7.12 that . Since is arbitrary, one has . ∎
8. Lower semicontinuous set-valued functions and small subgroupoids
In this section, let us show that if there is an equivariant lower semicontinuous set-valued function on (in particular, if lower semicontinuous dynamical tiling exists), then there always exists a small subgroupoid associated to this function (Theorem 8.3).
Definition 8.1**.**
Consider a topological dynamical system . A shape function with domain , where is an open subset of , is a set-valued function
[TABLE]
such that
- (1)
, , 2. (2)
is uniformly bounded in the sense that there is a finite set such that
[TABLE] 3. (3)
the function is lower semicontinuous in the sense that for any , there is an open neighbourhood such that
[TABLE]
and 4. (4)
the function is equivariant in the sense that
[TABLE]
Example 8.2*.*
Consider the dynamical system , where is a minimal homeomorphism. Let be a closed set with non-empty interior. For each , define the positive first return time and negative first return time of to be
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
is a shape function (with domain ).
Actually, let
[TABLE]
be the Rokhlin partition associated to (see Section 5). Then
[TABLE]
Theorem 8.3**.**
Let be a topological dynamical system, and let be a shape function with domain . Then there is an open and relatively compact subgroupoid such that the unit space is and
[TABLE]
Proof.
For each finite subset , define
[TABLE]
Since is equivariant, there are finite subsets and a partition of
[TABLE]
For each , define
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Let us verify that is open.
Assume that , then
[TABLE]
and let us assume that
[TABLE]
for some . That is
[TABLE]
Since is lower semicontinuous, there is an open set such that
[TABLE]
Let us show that , and hence is open.
For each , there is and such that
[TABLE]
Since , one has . Also note that
[TABLE]
and (since ); one has and hence . That is
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
This shows that is open.
Define
[TABLE]
Since is open, is an open (and relatively compact) subset containing , . Let us show that is actually a subgroupoid.
Let . Then there are and such that
[TABLE]
and hence . Since , one has
[TABLE]
and therefore,
[TABLE]
(note that ).
Let , with
[TABLE]
Then, there are
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
Since , one has
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Noting that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
one has that . So, let us denote both and by .
Since
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Thus is a subgroupoid of .
It is clear that the unit space of is . Let , and let us calculate the -orbit of . Assume that for some . Then
[TABLE]
If for some , then
[TABLE]
Assume that for some . Then, . Note
[TABLE]
one has that , and therefore
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for any , it is clear that . Therefore
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 8.4*.*
By considering
[TABLE]
one extends to a (open and relatively compact) subgroupoid with unit space without changing orbit of each .
Definition 8.5**.**
A free dynamical system is said to have lower semicontinuous dynamical tiling property (LscT) if for any finite set and any , there is a partition valued function such that
- (1)
there are finite sets such that for each , the partition is a tiling of with tiles , and are invariant, 2. (2)
the map is equivariant, i.e.,
[TABLE] 3. (3)
the function is lower semicontinuous, i.e., for any finite set and any , there is a neighbourhood such that
[TABLE]
The system is said to have continuous dynamical tiling property (CT) if Condition (3) is strengthen to
- (3’)
the function is continuous, i.e., for any finite set and any , there is a neighbourhood such that
[TABLE]
where and denote partitions of induced by and , respectively.
The following lemma is straightforward.
Lemma 8.6**.**
If a free dynamical system has (LscT) (or (CT)), and if is an extension of , then has (LscT) (or (CT)).
Once the dynamical system has the (LscT), then arbitrarily invariant shape functions (hence small subgroupoids) exist:
Corollary 8.7**.**
Let be a free dynamical system with (LscT). Then, for any finite set and any , there is a small subgroupoid such that for any , the -orbit is -invariant.
Proof.
For each , define
[TABLE]
where is the tile of containing . Then is a shape function with domain in the sense of Definition 8.1, and the statement follows directly from Theorem 8.3. ∎
Together with Corollary 7.13, one has
Corollary 8.8**.**
Let be a free dynamical system with (LscT). Then for any open sets with
[TABLE]
one has
[TABLE]
The topological-dynamical version of subequivalence and comparison have a long history, see, for example, [17] and [18]. The following definitions can be found in [27] and [7].
Definition 8.9**.**
Let be a countable amenable group.
- (1)
Let act on a zero-dimensional compact metric space . For two clopen sets , we say that is subequivalent to (and write ), if there exists a finite partition of into clopen sets and there are elements of such that , , …, are disjoint subsets of . We say that the action admits comparison if for any pair of clopen subsets of , the condition that for each invariant measure on we have , implies . 2. (2)
If every action of on any zero-dimensional compact metric space admits comparison then we will say that has the comparison property.
Also recall
Theorem 8.10** (Theorem 5.11 and Theorem 6.2 of [7]).**
Any amenable group with subexponential growth has the comparison property. Any free Cantor system with an amenable group with the comparison property has (CT).
Then, for extensions of a Cantor system, one has the following Cuntz comparison of open sets.
Corollary 8.11**.**
If has comparison property in sense of Definition 8.9 (in particular, if has subexponential growth) and has a free Cantor factor, then, for any open sets with
[TABLE]
one has that
[TABLE]
In other words, has -Cuntz-comparison of open sets.
Proof.
Assume that is an extension of a free Cantor system . By Theorem 8.10, the factor has the (CT), and then, by Lemma 8.6, has the (CT) (in particular, the (LscT)). The statement follows from Corollary 8.8. ∎
Corollary 8.12**.**
Let be a minimal free topological dynamical system which is an extension of a free Cantor system. If has the comparison property in sense of Definition 8.9 (in particular, if has subexponential growth), then
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Corollary 3.8, has the (URP). Since is assumed to have the comparison property (Definition 8.9), it follows from Corollary 8.11 that has -Cuntz-comparison on open sets. Then the statement follows from Theorem 4.8. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] N. P. Brown and N. Ozawa. C*-Algebras and Finite-Dimenisional Approximations , volume 88 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. URL: https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2391387 , doi:10.1090/gsm/088 . · doi ↗
- 2[2] Lisa Orloff Clark. Classifying the types of principal groupoid C*-algebras. J. Operator Theory , 57(2):251–266, 2007.
- 3[3] J. Cuntz. Dimension functions on simple C*-algebras. Math. Ann. , 233(2):145–153, 1978.
- 4[4] J. Dixmier. C*-Algebras , volume 15 of North-Holland Mathematical Library . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977.
- 5[5] D. Dou. Minimal subshifts of arbitrary mean topological dimension. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 37(3):1411–1424, 2017. URL: https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3640558 , doi:10.3934/dcds.2017058 . · doi ↗
- 6[6] T. Downarowicz and D. Huczek. Dynamical quasitilings of amenable groups. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. , 66(1):45–55, 2018. URL: https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=3782587 , doi:10.4064/ba 8128-1-2018 . · doi ↗
- 7[7] T. Downarowicz and G. Zhang. The comparison property of amenable groups. 12 2017. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.05129 , ar Xiv:1712.05129 .
- 8[8] E. G. Effros and F. Hahn. Locally compact transformation groups and C*- algebras . Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 75. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1967.
