Reconstructing maps out of groups
Kathryn Mann, Maxime Wolff

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates how a homeomorphism of a manifold can be reconstructed from the isomorphism class of a finitely generated group of homeomorphisms, linking critical regularity and differentiable rigidity with applications to 1-manifolds.
Contribution
It introduces methods to recover manifold homeomorphisms from group isomorphism classes and connects concepts of regularity and rigidity, providing new insights and proofs.
Findings
Homeomorphism can be reconstructed from group isomorphism class.
Existence of groups of diffeomorphisms with strong differential rigidity.
Finiteness of groups of $C^eta$ diffeomorphisms not embeddable into higher regularity groups.
Abstract
We show that, in many situations, a homeomorphism of a manifold may be recovered from the (marked) isomorphism class of a finitely generated group of homeomorphisms containing . As an application, we relate the notions of {\em critical regularity} and of {\em differentiable rigidity}, give examples of groups of diffeomorphisms of 1-manifolds with strong differential rigidity, and in so doing give an independent, short proof of a recent result of Kim and Koberda that there exist finitely generated groups of diffeomorphisms of a 1-manifold , not embeddable into for any .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeometric and Algebraic Topology · Advanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems · Protein Tyrosine Phosphatases
Reconstructing maps out of groups
Kathryn Mann
Department of Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
and
Maxime Wolff
Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ. Paris 06, Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu-Paris Rive Gauche, UMR 7586, CNRS, Univ. Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 75005 Paris, France
Abstract.
We show that, in many situations, a homeomorphism of a manifold may be recovered from the (marked) isomorphism class of a finitely generated group of homeomorphisms containing . As an application, we relate the notions of critical regularity and of differentiable rigidity, give examples of groups of diffeomorphisms of 1-manifolds with strong differential rigidity, and in so doing give an independent, short proof of a recent result of Kim and Koberda that there exist finitely generated groups of diffeomorphisms of a 1-manifold , not embeddable into for any .
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
It is a classical and fundamental problem to describe to what extent the algebraic structure of a group determines the topological spaces on which the group can act, or constrains the regularity of those actions. For example, Whittaker [19] showed that closed topological manifolds can be completely recovered from the algebraic structure of their groups of homeomorphisms: an isomorphism between and implies that and the isomorphism is an inner automorphism. This was generalized by Rubin to homeomorphism groups of other topological spaces, and Filipkiewicz [6] improved this to the groups of diffeomorphisms of manifolds, showing that the algebraic structure of can even detect the regularity .
All of these could be considered recognition or reconstruction theorems, showing that spaces can be recognized by their transformation groups. A different approach to the classical problem is to relate the complexity of a topological space to the algebraic complexity of (finitely generated) subgroups of its homeomorphism or diffeomorphism groups. This is, in some sense the “generalized Zimmer program,” Zimmer’s conjecture being that groups of high algebraic complexity, namely lattices of higher rank, cannot act by smooth or volume-preserving diffeomorphisms on low-dimensional manifolds.
This broad line of investigation has been particularly successful in dimension one. Here we know several purely algebraic conditions that prevent finitely generated groups from acting on one-manifolds with a given regularity. In the setting, this is the presence of left- or circular-orderability. In class , many obstructions come from the Thurston stability theorem, while in higher regularity this program can be traced back all the way to Denjoy’s work on rotations of the circle. To give some more recent examples, Navas [14] showed that Kazhdan’s property is an algebraic obstruction to acting on the circle with regularity for ; Castro–Jorquera–Navas [3] gave examples of nilpotent groups with sharp bounds on the Hölder regularity of their actions on the closed interval ; and more recently, Kim and Koberda [11] gave examples of finitely generated subgroups of “critical regularity ,” embeddable in but not in for any when or .
1.2. Results
Our aim here is to contribute both to the general program of recognition and reconstruction, and to the problem of restricting regularity, with a specific application to the one-dimensional case.
We give general criteria for a group of homeomorphisms of a space to “reconstruct” or “recognize” other homeomorphisms of purely through algebraic relations (Theorem 1.2). We also construct groups acting on 1-manifolds with a strong differentiable rigidity property (Theorem 1.7 and following), by using recent work of Bonatti–Monteverde–Navas–Rivas [1] and a precise version of the Sternberg linearization theorem. Building on all this, we deduce the existence of groups with critical regularity (Theorem 1.6). This gives an alternative short proof (and some generalization) of the critical regularity result of Kim and Koberda mentioned above. However, their techniques go further in a different direction than ours: they also give groups whose critical regularity passes to finite index subgroups, simple groups of given regularity, and define dynamical notions “-fast” and “-expansive” that are useful for explicitly constructing groups of specified regularity.
The remainder of this introductory section is devoted to giving precise statements of our results.
First result: map recognition
Definition 1.1**.**
Let be a topological space, let , and let be any subset of . We will say that recognizes maps in if for any , and for any , the existence of a group isomorphism
[TABLE]
with and implies that .
Note that if recognizes maps in and , then recognizes maps in as well. Furthermore, the property of recognizing individual maps in is equivalent to the property of recognizing any subset of .
The following theorem, proved in Section 2, shows that examples of such groups abound. We introduce some terminology needed for the statement. Recall that, for a group and , the support of is the closure of the set . Non total support means . We say that has small supports everywhere if, for every nonempty open set , there exists with , and that has the contraction property if, for any nonempty open set , there exists such that .
Theorem 1.2** (Map recognition).**
Let be a Hausdorff topological space, and .
- (1)
If has maps with small supports everywhere, then recognizes maps in . 2. (2)
If acts on with the contraction property, then recognizes homeomorphisms of with non total support.
Similar conditions have been used elsewhere in the literature. The reconstruction theorems of Whittaker, Epstein, and Rubin [5, 19, 16] all use variations on the idea of small supports. To our knowledge, the contraction property was first used (under the more cumbersome name of “minimality and strong expansivity”) in the proof by Margulis of the Tits’ alternative in ; see [12, 8].
We also show that Baumslag-Solitar groups give additional examples of groups with map recognition. These are needed for our applications and do not fall in the domain of Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 1.3**.**
The affine Baumslag-Solitar subgroup recognizes maps with compact support.
Here denotes the group generated by the maps and . Theorem 1.3 is proved in Section 3, where we actually prove something stronger – see Proposition 3.1. It would be interesting to find a simple and general condition that would simultaneously imply both the statements of Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.3.
Application: differential rigidity from critical regularity
Definition 1.4** (Differential rigidity and critical regularity).**
Let be a manifold and .
- (1)
A subgroup is said to be -rigid if for all , any faithful morphism comes from conjugation by some element of . 2. (2)
A subgroup is said to have critical regularity if for every there is no faithful morphism 111In [11], “critical regularity ” means something slightly more general: it denotes this property of a group, and also the property of being embeddable into for all but not in .
Here and are assumed to take real values, with the convention that a map is of class if it is and if it is -derivatives are -Hölder. However, most of our work in the 1-dimensional case actually applies to maps whose regularity is given by more general moduli of continuity. We assume Hölder regularity here only for simplicity of the statement. See Remark 4.4 below.
The following proposition illustrates that critical regularity follows from differentiable rigidity in a general sense: this is the guiding principle and original motivation of our work.
Proposition 1.5** (Critical regularity from differential rigidity).**
Let be a manifold and . Let be -rigid, and suppose that for some nonempty open set (possibly equal to ), recognizes maps with support in . Then for any map with support in , and any , the group admits a faithful morphism to if and only if .
The proof is a quick consequence of the definitions, we give it at the beginning of Section 5.
Examples of groups with differential rigidity and critical
regularity
Proposition 1.5 motivates the construction of differentiably rigid groups that have the map recognition property. We will several examples, described below, when . Combined with Proposition 1.5 and variations on it, these constructions give a short proof of the following result, due to Kim and Koberda for and .
Theorem 1.6** (Compare Kim–Koberda [11]).**
For , , or , and for all , there exist finitely generated subgroups of of critical regularity .
In fact, as we mentioned above, the statement we obtain here is valid in much more generality than regularities with , but with more general moduli of continuity; we prove that these finer regularities are detected by the algebraic structures of the groups. This implies, in particular, that there exist uncountably many non-isomorphic finitely generated groups in each class of critical regularity in Theorem 1.6, and responds to Question 7.1(1) of [11]. We do not seek to state Theorem 1.6 in maximal degree of generality here – see Remark 4.4 and the discussion following.
The groups we construct for the use of Proposition 1.5 are actually quite easy to describe. The simplest case is . Let be a Fuchsian triangle group , with presentation
[TABLE]
choose an integer , consider a proper interval , and let be a copy of an affine subgroup containing and an extra irrational homothety , acting smoothly on by a conjugate of the affine action on , and by the identity on . Let denote the group generated by and . While there are many choices involved in this construction, we show all resulting groups are rigid:
Theorem 1.7** (Differential rigidity on ).**
Any group obtained by the construction above is -rigid, for all .
For other -manifolds, the situation is more delicate. For example, no groups can act in a differentiably rigid way on the closed interval , as one can always conjugate an action to make it infinitely tangent to a linear action at [math], “double” the interval at [math] and glue two copies of the action side by side. However, our strategy can be adapted to prove critical regularity using weaker forms of map recognition for group actions on and . On the line, one can arrive at this by lifting maps from . We show:
Proposition 1.8**.**
Let be the group of lifts to of elements of a group defined above. Then is -rigid, for all . Moreover, if denotes the set of homeomorphisms of which commute with integer translations, then recognizes maps of up to integer translations.
On the closed interval, more work is needed. Let denote the group generated by as above, acting smoothly on and conjugate on to the standard affine action, together with a homeomorphism with support in . For simplicity we suppose also that the set is connected. Then we have the following.
Theorem 1.9** (Differential rigidity on the interval).**
Let be a faithful morphism. Then there exists an interval , invariant under , and a -diffeomorphism conjugating to the original action on . In particular, this implies .
Regularity of conjugacies
A major ingredient the examples above is a result on regularity of conjugacies (Proposition 4.1), reminiscent of a theorem of Takens, which may be of independent interest. We show that the group described above has the property that, if is conjugate to the standard affine action by a homeomorphism , then is in fact of class . This is the main content of Section 4.
Higher dimension
We hope that this application to problems of critical regularity (via Proposition 1.5) provides motivation to construct and study groups of diffeomorphisms of higher dimensional manifolds with differential rigidity, or that exhibit the regularity of conjugacies property of Proposition 4.1. This seems to be a challenging problem, and the situation there may be quite different. Note, for example, that Harrison [10, 9] constructed diffeomorphisms of manifolds (in all dimensions ) that are not topologically conjugate to any diffeomorphisms for any .
Acknowledgements
The authors thank S. Kim and T. Koberda for feedback on an early version of this work. K.M. was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 1844516. This work was started when both authors were in Montevideo, we thank the Universidad de la República for its hospitality.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.2: map recognition
Statements (1) and (2) of this theorem follow the same general strategy of proof, so we treat them in parallel. Throughout this section, denotes a Hausdorff topological space. We will suppose furthermore that has cardinal . Provided that there exists a group acting on it with small supports everywhere or with the contraction property this implies that is infinite, and has no isolated points. In the case , Theorem 1.2 is immediate.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be a group with maps with small supports everywhere. Let be a continuous map, and let . Then the following holds.
- (1)
If , then for any sufficiently small neighborhood of and with , the maps and do not commute. 2. (2)
If , then for any sufficiently small neighborhood of and with , the maps and commute.
The proof is a straightforward exercise, which we omit. The version for groups with the contraction property is more interesting:
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let have the contraction property, let be a continuous map, and let . Then the following holds.
- (1)
If , then for any sufficiently small neighborhood of and every mapping into , the maps and do not commute. 2. (2)
If , then for any sufficiently small neighborhood of , and every mapping into , the maps and commute.
Proof.
The second item is nearly immediate. Simply take contained in . Then the support of lies in , so and have disjoint supports, hence commute.
For the first item, suppose . Since has no isolated points, there exists some other point such that the set has cardinality . Let be a neighborhood of such that and . (Such a neighborhood exists since is Hausdorff). Let satisfy . Note that this also implies that . It follows that , but , so does not commute with its conjugate by . ∎
The lemma above will allow us to reconstruct maps, first by recovering their support.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let be a subgroup, either with small supports everywhere, or with the contracting property. Let be any homeomorphisms. Suppose that there exists a group isomorphism
[TABLE]
such that and . Then .
Proof.
Let be such that . Suppose for contradiction that .
Suppose first that has maps with small supports everywhere. We use Lemma 2.1. Let be a small neighborhood of and let with support in . Then does not commute with , while commutes with : this contradicts that is an isomorphism. If instead is contracting, we use Lemma 2.2: let be a small enough neighborhood of and let be an element mapping inside . Then and do not commute, while and commute: this again contradicts the existence of .
Hence, we have proved the inclusion Taking closures, this implies . The reverse inclusion follows since the roles of and are symmetric. ∎
We now conclude the proof of Theorem 1.2. Let be a Hausdorff topological space, and, as a first case, assume is a group with small supports everywhere. Let be any two homeomorphisms, and suppose there exists a group isomorphism as in the statement of Theorem 1.2. Suppose for contradiction that there exists such that . Let be a neighborhood of such that is not in , and let be an element of with support in ; suppose furthermore (without loss of generality) that . Then the commutator map has support in , while . Hence, the maps and have distinct supports. On the other hand, the isomorphism restricts to an isomorphism with the same properties, and this gives a contradiction with Lemma 2.3. Thus, for every we have , and symmetrically we have . This implies .
Finally, suppose instead that is contracting, let be a map with non total support, let be any map, and suppose there exists a group isomorphism as above. By Lemma 2.3 we have , in particular also has non total support and and again play symmetric roles. For contradiction suppose there exists such that . Let be a point which is not in , and distinct from . As is Hausdorff, there exist a neighborhood of , and a neighborhood of , such that the sets , and are pairwise disjoint, and such that . Let be such that and . The map has support in , so the map has support in . It follows that the map has support in , while the map has support in . Also, is not the identity in , simply because is non trivial. However, restricts to a group isomorphism , thus Lemma 2.3 yields a contradiction, as in the preceding case. ∎
3. Proof of Theorem 1.3: maps recognized by
For , let denote the Baumslag–Solitar group, with its standard affine action on the real line, defined by and .
This section is devoted to the proof of the following stronger version of Theorem 1.3. Here we require only a morphism, not an isomorphism between groups. We will need to use this weaker hypothesis in our discussion of an analog of differential rigidity on the closed interval in Section 6. Theorem 1.3 follows immediately from the statement below by taking to be an isomorphism, and applying the result also to .
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let , and suppose has compact support. Suppose there is a (not necessarily injective) morphism restricting to the identity on and mapping to . Then either is a translation, or we have, for all , .
In the statement, denotes the group generated by and ; the same applies to . The proof of Proposition 3.1, like that of Theorem 1.2, is through a careful study of the supports of (non)-commuting elements. The main technical tool is the following.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let be different from a translation. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- (1)
* has compact support.* 2. (2)
There exists a compact set such that for every element with , we have ; and for every element , the commutator also satisfies the same hypothesis: there exists a compact such that for all with , we have .
In the second point of the statement above the set depends on .
Before embarking on the proof, we begin with an easy and useful lemma. If we write if for all , . We write if for all , .
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let be commuting maps, each without fixed points. Suppose and there exists with . Then has fixed points.
Proof.
Up to replacing , and with their inverses and switching the role of and , we may assume without loss of generality that . Since is fixed point free, up to conjugacy we may further assume . Since commutes with , it has compact fundamental domain , hence there exists such that for all , we have . By a simple induction this implies that, for any integer , we have and .
Now let be any point. If then take such that , and set . Then we have
[TABLE]
Hence, and : this implies that has at least one fixed point. If instead , take with ; the same reasoning shows that , also implying has a fixed point. ∎
Going forward, we denote by the abelian subgroup consisting of translations, i.e., the normal subgroup generated by . For , let denote the translation . We note the following standard fact.
Observation 3.4**.**
The centralizer of in is the translation subgroup. Indeed, this is true when is replaced with any dense subgroup of translations.
Proof of Proposition 3.2.
The implication is immediate, simply take , and, for any , take . So we need only prove the converse. The proof has three preliminary steps. We state these as Lemmas since we will later apply them to a commutator involving , rather than .
Lemma 3.5**.**
Suppose , and is a compact set such that for each where . If the germ of at either or is a nontrivial translation, then is a translation.
Proof.
Suppose that the germ at agrees with that of translation by some real number . (The case for the germ at is exactly the same.) By Observation 3.4, to show that is a translation it suffices to show that commutes with arbitrarily small translations.
Let and . By hypothesis, commutes with provided is large enough. Also, for large enough, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This yields and we are done. ∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Suppose is as in the previous lemma, namely, there is a compact such that for each where . Suppose also that does not have compact support. Then .
Proof.
From Lemma 3.5 above, either is a translation (in which case we are done) or one germ of , without loss of generality say at , is non trivial and not equal to that of a translation. Equivalently, the displacement map is not constant in any neighborhood of .
Suppose for contraction that does have a fixed point, . We will show that has a dense subset of fixed points, i.e. , contradicting that was assumed to have noncompact support.
Let and . We want to prove that has a fixed point in the interval . Let be the compact set given by condition , and let be such that . Set , and let be a point in where the displacement of is not locally constant. Then we can find a point such that the displacements and are independent over . Now we make the following claim.
Claim. Let differ by or . Then is a fixed point of if and only if is.
Let us prove this claim. We treat the case where and is a fixed point of , the other cases are symmetric. Let . Since acts minimally on , and since is continuous at , we can find a point such that , and such that . Provided is small enough, we also have . Let . By hypothesis, commutes with , and since is a fixed point of , this implies that is also a fixed point of . Now, is within distance from : hence admits fixed points of in all its neighborhoods, and the claim is proved.
Now we can finish the proof of the lemma. Since and are independent over , there exist such that . Taking and to be large, we can also suppose that the vectors and have opposite sign. So up to exchanging the two, suppose . The claim above implies that and hence, can be applied iteratively, showing that . A similar inductive argument with playing the role of shows that . This proves the lemma. ∎
Lemma 3.7**.**
Suppose is such that and . Then has compact support.
Proof.
For contradiction, suppose that the hypotheses of the lemma hold, and suppose as well that the map is not a translation and does not have compact support. Then we can apply Lemmas 3.5 and 3.6 to , and deduce that has no fixed points in . Hence, we have or . In either case, Lemma 3.3 immediately gives a contradiction: hence, has compact support or is a translation. But the latter case is forbiden, by Lemma 3.3 (and Lemma 3.6 applied to ). Hence has compact support. ∎
Now we can finish the proof of Proposition 3.2. Suppose satisfies (2) and is not a translation. By Observation 3.4 the set of such that commutes with is nowhere dense, hence the set is dense in the set of translations. Also, for large enough and , the maps and commute, hence, by Lemma 3.7, both germs of are trivial. Thus, both germs of are -periodic, for a set of real numbers which has accumulation points. This implies that both germs of have constant displacement, and by Lemma 3.5 this displacement is zero. Hence, has compact support. ∎
Using this, we prove the main result of this section.
Proof of Proposition 3.1.
Let have compact support, and suppose that is a morphism restricting to the identity on , and with . Suppose also that is not a translation. Using Proposition 3.2 and commutation relations among and elements of we can conclude that has compact support. As in the proof of Theorem 1.2, we will now show that for all , .
Suppose for contradiction that there is some point with . Let be a small neighborhood of , chosen small enough so that , and are pairwise disjoint, and so that no image of under translation intersects both and simultaneously. Let be a dilatation with fixed point in , and with derivative large enough so that .
Then the support of the map
[TABLE]
is contained in and, similarly, the support of
[TABLE]
is contained in . Let be the rightmost point of .
Since the action of is minimal, we can find such that . In particular, this means that , since is not a -invariant set. However, our choice of ensures that and will have disjoint support, and therefore commute. This gives the desired contradiction. ∎
4. Regularity of conjugacies
One of our ingredients for differential rigidity will be the following analogue of a theorem of Takens [17]. Takens’ theorem states that a homeomorphism between two smooth manifolds and , which conjugates to , is necessarily a diffeomorphism of class . Here we specialize to , but need only a conjugacy between a finitely generated affine subgroup.
As in the introduction, let and consider the Baumslag-Solitar group , with its affine action, together with an extra homothety , with , and let denote this subgroup of . There is a conjugate of this action to an action by diffeomorphisms on ; which may even taken to be -tangent to the identity at [math] and .
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let , and let be an action, -conjugate to the standard affine action, so there exists a homeomorphism such that for every , we have . Then is of class . The same holds if is replaced with any modulus of continuity satisfying Sternberg linearization, as discussed below.
The proof has two main ingredients. The first is a recent result of Bonatti–Monteverde–Navas–Rivas [1].
Theorem 4.2** (Theorem 1.3 and 1.7 in [1]).**
If acts by diffeomorphisms of with no fixed point in and non-Abelian image, then the action is conjugate to the standard action, and the the derivative of at its (unique) interior fixed point is .
The second ingredient is the Sternberg linearization theorem, or more precisley, Yoccoz’s proof of this theorem in [20], which applies to a more general setting than regularity. Using this Proposition 4.1 can be seen to hold when is replaced by any modulus of continuity to which this proof applies. We now describe the context of interest to us.
Recall that if is a homeomorphism, a map is said to be -continuous if for some we have for all . For , or , this is the notion of Lipschitz, or Hölder functions, respectively. A map is said to be of class if it is and is -continuous.
Theorem 4.3** (Sternberg linearization).**
Let be a homeomorphism, and suppose that there exists an increasing map , which sends into , such that for all and we have . Let be a germ of a diffeomorphism of , with and , of class , with , or of class , . Then there exists a unique germ of diffeomorphism of , with and , with same regularity as , and such that conjugates into the multiplication by .
Remark 4.4**.**
The condition on of existence of such a map is sufficient to make , stable under composition for all . The condition comes into play in the proof in regularity . Examples for include maps equal to for small , for and . In one dimensional dynamics some phenomena depend in a very subtle way on the regularity; see [15, Paragraph 4.1.4] for a great variation of examples.
Note that, by choosing appropriate regularities, e.g. using a function agreeing near [math] with and varying and , this shows there exist uncountably many finitely generated groups with critical regularity , even in the broader sense of the definition of critical regularity mentioned in the footnote in Section 1.2.
We do not give the proof here, as it is classical, but refer the reader to the proof appearing in Yoccoz [20, Appendice 4]. (See also Navas [15, Theorem 3.6.2].) While our statement of Theorem 4.3 is more general than that of Yoccoz, his proof works in this setting as well: one applies the Picard-Banach fixed point theorem to an operator on a Banach space of functions of a given regularity, a fixed point of this operator gives the map . It follows that there is no loss of regularity between the map and the conjugating map , contrarily to Sternberg’s original proof. The condition on in our statement is easily verified to be a sufficient condition for the operator used in the proof to be a contraction when . (However, the reader should keep in mind that Theorem 4.3 is false in regularity ; a counterexample was given by Sternberg himself.) S. Kim and Th. Koberda inform us that this condition has a natural equivalent formulation, called sub-tameness of in [4]. It is also shown in [4] that one may equally well work only with concave moduli of continuity; however we find the condition most straightforward to use in Yoccoz’s proof.
Now we give the proof of Lemma 4.1.
Proof of Lemma 4.1.
We assume for simplicity that is orientation preserving, this does not affect the argument. From Theorem 4.2, has derivative at . By Sternberg linearization theorem, there exists a unique germ of -diffeomorphism at , conjugating to multiplication by , and such that . In other words, there exists a neighborhood and a map sending [math] to , such that , and for all small enough. Note that the map satisfies the same conditions, hence defines the same germ at [math], by uniqueness. Thus, conjugates to multiplication by , and, simultaneously, conjugates to multiplication by some scalar . Considering the action of on the translation subgroup of , we conclude that .
Hence, the map , which is defined on , commutes with a dense group of dilatations and so is itself a multiplication by a scalar. In particular, is of class on some neighborhood of [math]. This is enough to deduce that has regularity everywhere, since for any compact set , there exists with and , allowing us to write on as a composition of locally maps. ∎
5. Differential rigidity and critical regularity
This and the following section are devoted to giving examples of groups with differential rigidity and critical regularity. Our guiding principle is Proposition 1.5, which we prove now.
Proof of Proposition 1.5.
If then of course, the inclusion maps the group into . Conversely, suppose that is a faithful morphism. Since , the restriction of to coincides with the conjugation by some element ; denote by the inverse of this conjugation. Hence is a faithful morphism, restricting to the identity on and mapping to . By recognition and since has support in , it follows that , hence is of class . ∎
5.1. Proof of Theorem 1.7
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.7, describing examples of -rigid groups of diffeomorphisms of , for all . We note that examples of -rigid such groups have actually been known for some time: the notion of differential rigidity essentially appeared in work of Ghys [7], where he proved that representations of surface groups with maximal Euler class into , , are -conjugate to representations in . Together with an observation of Calegari [2], this implies that, for example the Fuchsian –triangle group in is -differentiably rigid. For the proof of Theorem 1.7, it will be convenient to work with the following consequence (essentially a restatement) of the theorem of Bonatti, Monteverde, Navas and Rivas given above at Theorem 4.2.
Corollary 5.1**.**
Let be a faithful morphism. Then there exists an integer , and open intervals , each invariant under the action by , and on which the -action of is -conjugate (possibly by an orientation reversing homeomorphism) to the standard action of on . Moreover, restricts to the identity on , and has derivative at its (unique) fixed point in each .
Proof.
Let be the connected components of . Apply Theorem 4.2 to the restriction of the action to each . If the action is faithful on some , then has derivative ; since is there can only be finitely many such. It remains only to show that every non-faithful action of on the line has in its kernel. This easily follows from the observation that every nontrivial element of has a normal form for some and . Thus, the only nontrivial, proper, torsion free quotient of is . ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.7.
Let and let be a faithful morphism.
The bulk of the proof is devoted to showing that the action of is minimal, which we do now. Calegari [2] showed that, for any nontrivial action of on by homeomorphisms, the Euler number of the action must be maximal. It then follows from work of Matsumoto [13] that the action is semi-conjugate to the standard one. Supposing, for contradiction, that is not minimal, this means that there is an invariant closed set , homeomorphic to a Cantor set, and a surjective, monotone, degree one map collapsing each complimentary region of to a point, which intertwines the action of with the standard action.
Let denote the set of two-sided accumulation points of . This is also a –invariant set, and the restriction of to is a homeomorphism conjugating to the standard action of on , which is a dense subset of . Thus, the action of on has the contraction property. Adapting Lemma 2.2 to this setting, the relations in imply that the following hold for all :
- (1)
if , then and , and 2. (2)
if , then .
Here as in Section 3 we denote by and the two standard generators of . From (1), we know that and share a fixed point in , so we may regard them as acting on the interval. Corollary 5.1 then asserts that there is a finite collection of open intervals on which the action of is topologically conjugate to the standard action, with . Since is dense, its intersection with has infinite cardinality, so (1) implies that the compliment of has infinite cardinality. In particular, this complement contains some open interval which intersects . Similarly, (2) implies that some nonempty subcollection of the intervals have nontrivial intersection with . Reindexing if needed, we suppose .
Since and each contain an open subset of , there exists such that , hence has support inside . Now take to be a connected component of . Since the action of on is standard, there is some mapping the support of into , and so
[TABLE]
From this we will derive a contradiction with the relations satisfied by .
Let . Let be a point with , and take such that . Then, for any small neighborhoods of and of , if satisfies , the maps and do not commute. However, the maps do commute, for they have disjoint supports, a contradiction. We conclude that acts minimally on .
Since the action of is minimal, it is topologically conjugate to the standard action of . Thus, after conjugation by some , we may assume that restricts to the identity morphism on . Now has the contracting property, so by Theorem 1.2 it recognizes , and , which have non-total support. It follows that is obtained by conjugation by . Finally, Lemma 4.1 asserts that the map is on the interval where and are supported. By minimality of the action of , we conclude that is everywhere, and the Theorem is proved. ∎
As a consequence, we have the following.
Proof of Theorem 1.6 for .
Since the map constructed above acts on with the contraction property, and contains maps with non total support, also contains maps with small supports everywhere. By Theorem 1.2, it thus follows that recognizes all of . Proposition 1.5 now proves Theorem 1.6 in the case . ∎
6. Rigidity and critical regularity for actions on and
We proceed with the proofs of Proposition 1.8 and Theorem 1.9. Recall that, as noted in the introduction, we will be forced to work with slight modifications of the notion of map recognition rather than directly applying Proposition 1.5.
6.1. Groups acting on the line
We have an exact sequence
[TABLE]
where is the group of all homeomorphisms of the real line which commute with the map . Let be the group from the previous section, and let denote its preimage in . Thus, the group is a subgroup of , and it is not hard to check that it is also generated by elements.
Proposition 6.1**.**
The group is -rigid.
Proof.
Much of this proof is an adaptation of an argument by Calegari, see [2].
Consider a faithful morphism , for some . The elements admit lifts , and satisfying . Suppose that admits a fixed point in . Then , and each fixes pointwise the fixed point set of , simply because the dynamics of any map on is monotone on its orbits. Hence has a global fixed point in , but this violates the Thurston stability theorem of [18].
Thus has no fixed point in , and so is topologically conjugate to the map itself. As is central in , the map descends to the quotient, defining a faithful morphism , which is a -conjugation by Theorem 1.7 above. The conjugating map then lifts to a diffeomorphism of , realizing by conjugation. ∎
Using this, we complete the proof of Proposition 1.8, showing that recognizes maps in up to integer translation.
Proof of Proposition 1.8.
We have already shown that is -rigid. So let and let be any map, and suppose that there is a group isomorphism which restricts to the identity on and with . We want to prove that for some .
First, as commutes with , so does , and . Hence, descends to a homeomorphism of the circle . Since the cyclic group generated by is central in both and , the map descends to a group isomorphism between the quotients and . These groups are naturally isomorphic to and , where is the homeomorphism of the circle defined by . Now, the group has maps with small supports everywhere so it follows from Theorem 1.2 that the maps and agree. Hence, and may differ only by an integer translation. ∎
Combining Propositions 1.5 and 1.8 gives the following, which proves Theorem 1.6 for .
Corollary 6.2** (Critical regularity on the line).**
Let be a map with non-total support, and suppose for some . Let be a lift of . Then is not isomorphic to any subgroup of .
6.2. The closed interval
We recall the set-up of Theorem 1.9. Fix and consider the affine group generated by and an irrational dilatation , as in Section 5. Let have compact support. For simplicity we will also suppose that is an interval (this assumption is not strictly necessary, but it will make our argument somewhat shorter). Let denote the group generated by , , and , and suppose is a faithful morphism. We will show that there exists an interval , invariant under , and a -diffeomorphism conjugating with the standard action on .
Note that this will also immediately imply the remaining case of the critical regularity statement given in Theorem 1.6 in the introduction.
Proof of Theorem 1.9.
Let be as above. Corollary 5.1 states that the complement of is a union of disjoint intervals ,…,, each of which admits a homeomorphism conjugating the standard action of on with its action via on . The proof has three steps, which we separate into short lemmas.
Lemma 6.3**.**
* preserves each interval .*
Proof.
For this, it suffices to show that , and , as the remaining intervals can then be shown invariant by applying this argument iteratively to the restriction of the action to and so on.
So, suppose for contradiction that , up to replacing with its inverse we may assume that . Then we also have for some . Let . Then, for all , we have , while for all . This contradicts that and commute for large enough, hence .
Now suppose for contradiction that . Let . As before let denote translation by . For all large, and commute, hence . Since the set accumulates to , we get that for a dense (and open) set of points near .
We claim next that , i.e. is strictly increasing on this interval. Indeed, if is a least fixed point of , then fixes and is increasing on . Since this map commutes with , provided is large, also fixes . It follows that accumulates at , so is actually fixed by , contradicting our assumption.
Note that this argument applies not only to but to any compactly supported homeomorphism with . In particular we may fix large and take and conclude for all or equivalently that for all .
Now we adapt the proof of Lemma 3.3 to derive a contradiction. The proof of the Lemma said that if and are commuting maps of , or equivalently, commuting maps of an interval with , and satisfies and for some , then we can find a point with . We assumed there that and preserved the interval . However, the exact same argument applies to our situation using the maps , , and , all of which fix the point . Choose a point , so we know already that . Running the proof of the lemma (verbatim) shows that there is some point with , contradicting our first observation above. ∎
Lemma 6.4**.**
The commutator acts nontrivially on some , and on any such interval, conjugates the action of to the standard action.
Proof.
Since is faithful, the commutator acts nontrivially and so acts nontrivially on at least one of the (-invariant) intervals in the complement of . Identifying with via , we obtain a morphism from to that is the identity on and sends to . By Proposition 3.1, we conclude that, on any such interval, either acts as a translation (which does not occur if on ), or we have for all . In this latter case, it follows that the interior of the support of in is a union of connected components of the interior of the support of . But was assumed connected, so we have proved the lemma. ∎
Lemma 6.5**.**
For some , the map conjugates the action of on to that of on .
Proof.
Let . Applying Lemma 6.4 to in place of shows that whenever acts nontrivially on some , then conjugates the action of on to the standard action. Since is faithful, there is some interval where and are simultaneously nontrivial. On this interval, we will easily be able to show that conjugates to the standard action as well, and hence conjugates all of .
To see this, for any , take a nested sequence of intervals with . Since the action of on has small supports everywhere, we may take with supported on . Thus, is supported on , and its conjugate by is supported on . Applying Proposition 3.1 to , it follows that is supported on . We conclude that, , as desired. ∎
Conclusion of proof. It remains only to remark that, by Lemma 4.1, the map obtained from Lemma 6.5 is of class . ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C. Bonatti, I. Monteverde, A. Navas, and C. Rivas. Rigidity for C 1 superscript 𝐶 1 C^{1} actions on the interval arising from hyperbolicity I: solvable groups. Math. Z. , 286(3-4):919–949, 2017.
- 2[2] Danny Calegari. Dynamical forcing of circular groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 358(8):3473–3491, 2006.
- 3[3] Gonzalo Castro, Eduardo Jorquera, and Andrés Navas. Sharp regularity for certain nilpotent group actions on the interval. Math. Ann. , 359(1-2):101–152, 2014.
- 4[4] Kim Sang-hyun Chang, Jaewon and Thomas Koberda. Algebraic structure of diffeomorphism groups of one-manifolds. 2019. preprint. ar Xiv:1904.08793 [math.GR].
- 5[5] D. B. A. Epstein. The simplicity of certain groups of homeomorphisms. Compositio Math. , 22:165–173, 1970.
- 6[6] R. P. Filipkiewicz. Isomorphisms between diffeomorphism groups. Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems , 2(2):159–171 (1983), 1982.
- 7[7] Étienne Ghys. Rigidité différentiable des groupes fuchsiens. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. , (78):163–185 (1994), 1993.
- 8[8] Étienne Ghys. Groups acting on the circle. Enseign. Math. (2) , 47(3-4):329–407, 2001.
