Fundamental groups of some ergodic equivalence relations of type II∞

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. A115-A124
Author(s):  
Sergey L. Gefter
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Fundamental Groups ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Ergodic Equivalence Relations

scholarly journals Subrelations of ergodic equivalence relations

1989 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Feldman ◽  
C. E. Sutherland ◽  
R. J. Zimmer
Keyword(s):  
Finite Index ◽  
Lie Group ◽  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Compact Lie Group ◽  
Rigidity Results ◽  
Higher Rank ◽  
Ergodic Equivalence Relations ◽  
Inner Automorphisms

AbstractWe introduce a notion of normality for a nested pair of (ergodic) discrete measured equivalence relations of type II1. Such pairs are characterized by a groupQwhich serves as a quotient for the pair, or by the ability to synthesize the larger relation from the smaller and an action (modulo inner automorphisms) ofQon it; in the case whereQis amenable, one can work with a genuine action. We classify ergodic subrelations of finite index, and arbitrary normal subrelations, of the unique amenable relation of type II1. We also give a number of rigidity results; for example, if an equivalence relation is generated by a free II1-action of a lattice in a higher rank simple connected non-compact Lie group with finite centre, the only normal ergodic subrelations are of finite index, and the only strongly normal, amenable subrelations are finite.

Orbital factor map

1993 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshihiro Hamachi ◽  
Hideki Kosaki
Keyword(s):  
Index Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Index Formula ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Type Iii ◽  
Factor Map ◽  
Ergodic Equivalence Relations ◽  
Basic Extension

AbstractFor a certain pair of discrete measured ergodic equivalence relations, we specify how one is imbedded into the other and obtain a factor and its subfactor. For this pair of factors index theory is developed. We obtain an index formula, an ‘extended’ relation corresponding to the basic extension, and so on. Our formulas as well as construction are very explicit and are given in terms of ‘measure theoretic’ data. We also present examples showing the contrast between type III0 index theory and type II1 (or IIIλ) index theory.

scholarly journals L2-BETTI NUMBERS OF DISCRETE MEASURED GROUPOIDS

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (05n06) ◽  
pp. 1169-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROMAN SAUER
Keyword(s):  
Probability Space ◽  
Betti Numbers ◽  
Free Action ◽  
Countable Group ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Dimension Theory ◽  
Discrete Groups ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Orbit Equivalent ◽  
Definition Of

There are notions of L2-Betti numbers for discrete groups (Cheeger–Gromov, Lück), for type II1-factors (recent work of Connes-Shlyakhtenko) and for countable standard equivalence relations (Gaboriau). Whereas the first two are algebraically defined using Lück's dimension theory, Gaboriau's definition of the latter is inspired by the work of Cheeger and Gromov. In this work we give a definition of L2-Betti numbers of discrete measured groupoids that is based on Lück's dimension theory, thereby encompassing the cases of groups, equivalence relations and holonomy groupoids with an invariant measure for a complete transversal. We show that with our definition, like with Gaboriau's, the L2-Betti numbers [Formula: see text] of a countable group G coincide with the L2-Betti numbers [Formula: see text] of the orbit equivalence relation [Formula: see text] of a free action of G on a probability space. This yields a new proof of the fact the L2-Betti numbers of groups with orbit equivalent actions coincide.

scholarly journals CLASSES OF WIRING DIAGRAMS AND THEIR INVARIANTS

2002 ◽  
Vol 11 (08) ◽  
pp. 1165-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID GARBER ◽  
MINA TEICHER ◽  
UZI VISHNE
Keyword(s):  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Fundamental Groups ◽  
Line Arrangements ◽  
Arrangements Of Lines

Wiring diagrams usually serve as a tool in the study of arrangements of lines and pseudolines. Here we go in the opposite direction, using known properties of line arrangements to motivate certain equivalence relations and actions on sets of wiring diagrams, which preserve the incidence lattice and the fundamental groups of the affine and projective complements of the diagrams. These actions are used in [GTV] to classify real arrangements of up to 8 lines and show that in this case, the incidence lattice determines both the affine and the projective fundamental groups.

Borel complexity of isomorphism between quotient Boolean algebras

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 1328-1340
Author(s):  
Su Gao ◽  
Michael Ray Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Equivalence Relations ◽  
Borel Set ◽  
Borel Sets ◽  
Opposite Case ◽  
Borel Complexity ◽  
Borel Ideal ◽  
The One ◽  
Ergodic Equivalence Relations

In response to a question of Farah, “How many Boolean algebras are there?” [Far04], one of us (Oliver) proved that there are continuum-many nonisomorphic Boolean algebras of the form with I a Borel ideal on the natural numbers, and in fact that this result could be improved simultaneously in two directions:(i) “Borel ideal” may be improved to “analytic P-ideal”(ii) “continuum-many” may be improved to “E0-many”; that is, E0 is Borel reducible to the isomorphism relation on quotients by analytic P-ideals.See [Oli04].In [AdKechOO], Adams and Kechris showed that the relation of equality on Borel sets (and therefore, any Borel equivalence relation whatsoever) is Borel reducible to the equivalence relation of Borel bireducibility. (In somewhat finer terms, they showed that the partial order of inclusion on Borel sets is Borel reducible to the quasi-order of Borel reducibility.) Their technique was to find a collection of, in some sense, strongly mutually ergodic equivalence relations, indexed by reals, and then assign to each Borel set B a sort of “direct sum” of the equivalence relations corresponding to the reals in B. Then if B1, ⊆ B2 it was easy to see that the equivalence relation thus induced by B1 was Borel reducible to the one induced by B2, whereas in the opposite case, taking x to be some element of B / B2, it was possible to show that the equivalence relation corresponding to x, which was part of the equivalence relation induced by B1, was not Borel reducible to the equivalence relation corresponding to B2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document