8

Let $K$ be a compact abelian group with its probability Haar measure, and let $S:K\to K$ be an ergodic translation automorphism. Suppose that $T:K\to K$ is a measure-preserving map that commutes with $S$. Is $T$ itself necessarily a translation (almost everywhere)?

This was an optional problem from a class exam, but we never got a solution set and the professor didn't reply to an email query, so we still can't figure it out. We've tried a few things that seemed somewhat promising (namely considering the map $T-\text{Id}$, or using character theory on $L^2$) but didn't end up getting anywhere.

Alp Uzman
  • 10,742
xir
  • 240

2 Answers2

3

Below are two arguments. The first one combines the two pieces you mentioned, and the second one ("Added") assumes that the group is metrizable. The second argument actually does not use the hypothesis that the group is abelian (see ($\dagger$) and ($\dagger\dagger$) below), although the existence of an ergodic translation implies that the group is abelian by one of the arguments I presented at Left Translation Action is Ergodic with respect to Haar.


Claim: Let $G$ be a compact abelian (not necessarily metrizable) group, $\eta_G$ be its Haar probability measure, $R_\bullet:G\curvearrowleft G$ be right translation action: $R_g(x)=x+g$. Let $f:G\to G$ be a $\eta_G$-almost everywhere defined measurable and $\eta_G$-preserving self-map of $G$. If $g\in G$ is such that $R_g$ is ergodic w/r/t $\eta_G$, and $\eta_G$-almost everywhere $f\circ R_g=R_g\circ f$, then there is an $h\in G$ such that $\eta_G$-almost everywhere $f=R_h.$

Denote by $G_0$ the full $\eta_G$-measure subset of $G$ on which both $f$ is defined and the commutation relation $f\circ R_g = R_g\circ f$ holds.


Proof: Let us also denote by $\widehat{G}=\text{Hom}_{\text{LCA}}(G;S^1)$ the Pontryagin dual of $G$. Note that the elements of $\widehat{G}$ (i.e. continuous characters $\chi$ of $G$) separate points of $G$, that is, given any $x,y\in G$, if $x\neq y$, then there is a character $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ such that $\chi(x)\neq\chi(y)$ (see e.g. Rudin's Fourier Analysis on Groups, p.24).

For any $\chi\in\widehat{G}$, put $f_\chi = \chi\circ(f-\text{id}_G):G\to \mathbb{C}$, $x\mapsto \dfrac{\chi\circ f(x)}{\chi(x)}=\chi\circ f(x)\, \overline{\chi(x)}$. Since $f$ is $\eta_G$ preserving we have that $f_\chi\in L^2(G,\eta_G;\mathbb{C})$. Further note that for any $x\in G_0$

$$f_\chi\circ R_g(x)=\chi(f(x+g)-(x+g)) = \chi(f(x)+g-g-x)=\chi(f(x)-x)=f_\chi(x),$$

where in the second equality we used the fact that $f$ commutes with $R_g$ on $G_0$, so that $f_\chi$ is a square integrable function $\eta_G$-almost everywhere invariant under the ergodic $R_g$; consequently it is constant (which constant possibly depends on the character $\chi$) (see e.g. Understanding the proof how an invariant function w.r.t. an ergodic transformation is constant a.e.).

For any $h\in G$, define the level set $S_h = (f-\text{id}_G)^{-1}(h)=\{x\in G_0 \,|\, f(x)-x=h\}$. Then we have that each $S_h$ is a Borel measurable subset and $G_0=\biguplus_{h\in G}S_h$. Note that the level set $S_h$ is precisely the set on which $f$ acts as translation by $h$ (a priori there may be different regions of $G$ on which $f$ acts as translations by different elements; our aim is to show that $f$ acts as a translation by an element that works globally $\eta_G$-almost everywhere). Some level sets are possibly negligible; but since they are disjoint there is an $h_1\in G$ such that $\eta_G(S_{h_1})>0$.

Suppose $f$ is not a translation $\eta_G$-almost everywhere. Then $\eta_G(S_{h_1})<1$ and consequently there is an $h_2\in G$ such that $h_2\neq h_1$ and $\eta_G(S_{h_2})>0$. Continuous characters of $G$ separate points of $G$; thus there is a $\chi=\chi_{h_1,h_2}\in \widehat{G}$ such that $\chi(h_1)\neq \chi(h_2)$. But then $f_{\chi}$ takes different values on the disjoint measurable subsets $S_{h_1}$ and $S_{h_2}$ of positive $\eta_G$-measure, a contradiction to $f_\chi$ being constant $\eta_G$-almost everywhere.


Added: Under the extra assumption that $G$ is metrizable, one can bypass the uncountable union used in the above proof. For this we'll use a version of Lusin's Theorem (see e.g. Lusin Theorem conditions). Specifically consider the version of Lusin's Theorem given in Kechris' Classical Descriptive Set Theory, p.108:

Theorem (Lusin): Let $X$ be a metrizable topological space and $Y$ be a second countable topological space. Then for any Borel probability measure $\mu$ on $X$ and any measurable function $\varphi:X\to Y$ the following holds: for any $\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}$, there is a closed subset $F_\epsilon\subseteq X$ such that

  • $1-\epsilon < \mu(F_\epsilon)$,
  • $\left.\varphi\right|_{_{F_\epsilon}}:F_\epsilon\to Y$ is continuous.

If $X$ is Polish (i.e. completely metrizable and separable topological space), then $F_\epsilon$ can be taken to be compact.

Second Proof (assuming $G$ is in addition metrizable): Fix a compatible distance function $d$ on $G$. We may apply Lusin's Theorem (see Every compact metrizable space is second countable, Compact metric spaces is second countable and axiom of countable choice, A metric space is separable iff it is second countable) to get a compact subset $K\subseteq G$ such that

  • $0<\eta_G(K)$,
  • $\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}:K\to G$ is continuous.

Denote for any $h\in G$ and for any $\delta\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}$ by $G[h|<\delta]=(G,d)[h|<\delta]$ the open ball centered at $h$ with radius $\delta$ (w/r/t the distance function $d$); thus

$$G[h|<\delta]=(G,d)[h|<\delta] = \{x\in G\,|\, d(x,h)<\delta\}.$$

By the continuity of $\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}$, for any $h$ and $\delta$, the set $\left(\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta])$ is open in $K$ and further for any fixed $\delta$ we have an open cover

$$K=\bigcup_{h\in G}\left(\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta]).$$

By the compactness of $K$, there is a finite set $F_\delta\subseteq G$ such that

$$K=\bigcup_{h\in F_\delta}\left(\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta]).$$

As $K$ has positive $\eta_G$-measure, there is some element $h_\delta\in F_\delta$ such that

$$0<\eta_G\left(\left(\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}\right)^{-1}(G[h_\delta|<\delta])\right).\quad\quad (\star)$$

Note that for any $h$ and $\delta$ we have that

\begin{align*} \left(\left.(f-\text{id}_G)\right|_{_K}\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta]) &=\{x\in K \,|\, d(f(x)-x,h)<\delta\}\\ &=K\cap \left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta])\\ &\subseteq \left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h|<\delta]) \end{align*}

Thus by ($\star$) we have that $0<\eta_G\left(\left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h_\delta|<\delta])\right)$. Further, the measurable set $(\left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h_\delta|<\delta])$ is invariant under the ergodic translation $R_g$ (since $f$ commutes with $R_g$; ($\dagger$) one can show this without using the abelian nature of $G$: $f(xg)(xg)^{-1}=f(x)gg^{-1}x^{-1}=f(x)x^{-1}$), whence we have:

$$\forall \delta\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}, \exists h_\delta\in G: \eta_G\left(\left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h_\delta|<\delta])\right)=1.$$

In particular, discretizing $\delta$, we have:

$$\forall k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}, \exists h_k\in G: \eta_G\left(\{x\in G \,|\, d(f(x)-x,h_k)<1/k\}\right)=1.$$

$G$ is compact, thus there is a subsequence $k_\ell\subseteq k$ and an element $h^\ast\in G$ such that $\lim_{\ell\to\infty} d(h_{k_\ell},h^\ast)=0$. Put $E=\bigcap_{\ell\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}}\left(f-\text{id}_G)\right)^{-1}(G[h_{k_\ell}|<1/{k_\ell}])$. Thus $E$ is a measurable subset of $G$ with full $\eta_G$ measure.

We claim that on $E$, $f$ coincides with translation by $h^\ast$. Indeed, let $\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}$. Then there is an $L\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq1}$ such that for any $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq L}$:

$$\dfrac{1}{k_\ell}<\dfrac{\epsilon}{2},\quad\quad d(h_{k_\ell},h^\ast)<\dfrac{\epsilon}{2}.$$

Let $x\in E$. Then

\begin{align*} d(f(x)-x,h^\ast) \leq d(f(x)-x,h_{k_L}) + d(h_{k_L},h^\ast) <\epsilon. \end{align*}

$\epsilon$ was arbitrary, whence on the full $\eta_G$-measure subset $E$, $f=R_{h^\ast}$. (($\dagger\dagger$) Without using the abelian nature of $G$ the same argument gives that on $E$ $f$ coincides with the left translation by $h^\ast$.)

Alp Uzman
  • 10,742
  • I'm confused how you conclude that there exists $\eta_G(S_{h_1})>0$. Couldn't all the level sets be negligible? Also, you're using a fact like "every square integrable function invariant by an ergodic action is constant almost everywhere," right? Why is that true? – xir Jan 17 '23 at 20:02
  • @xir Level sets are disjoint and their union is a full measure set; if all level sets were zero their union would not be able to be full measure. Yes, I am using the spectral characterization of ergodicity; you should be able to find this characterization in most (if not any) introductory book on ergodic theory. See e.g. https://www.ma.imperial.ac.uk/~mrasmuss/ergodictheory/ErgodicTheoryNotes.pdf p.27. – Alp Uzman Jan 17 '23 at 21:42
  • @xir (There is some subtlety regarding the first point I am brushing under the rug; the union of level sets is possibly uncountable but this can be handled using "measurable unions" etc.) – Alp Uzman Jan 17 '23 at 21:43
  • @(Alternatively one can rearrange the sentences to avoid measurable unions and the like: for any $h$, the level set $S_h$ is measurable. If $f$ is not translation a.e., then no level set $S_h$ can have full measure; thus there are at least two different $h_1\neq h_2$ with associated level sets each of positive measure.) – Alp Uzman Jan 17 '23 at 22:46
  • I guess I still don't understand this point about the level sets. How does the rearranging of the sentences in your last comment preclude an uncountable union of negligible level sets? I'm not familiar with the concept of measurable union either; is it necessary to understand in order to complete the argument? – xir Jan 17 '23 at 22:50
  • @xir The argument in the parentheses goes for "at least two distinct level sets of positive measure" without using the measurable union. There may even be a different version of the argument I presented that does not use level sets; I'll add it if I can think of it. – Alp Uzman Jan 18 '23 at 16:38
  • right, I don't understand how you're concluding that there's at least two distinct level sets of positive measure, which you say follows from no level set having full measure. I don't see how you can conclude this, given that a priori it's even possible for every level set to have measure zero. – xir Jan 18 '23 at 19:17
  • @xir Assuming additionally that $G$ is metrizable I've found a different argument and added it to my answer. – Alp Uzman Jan 19 '23 at 03:06
  • 1
    This was an impressive read (+1) but I don’t understand all of it. I always associate your name on MSE with dynamical system answers. May I ask, from which sources did you “learn your stuff”? I read through about half of “Operator Theoretic Aspects of Ergodic Theory” a year ago, but in the future I intend to learn about it in more breadth and depth – FShrike Jan 19 '23 at 07:53
  • 1
    @FShrike Given the level of interactions I've seen you have here, I'm sure if there is any confusion it's due to my terse notation/phrasing. Thanks to your questions from the Eisner et al book I became aware of it actually; it's a nice book. – Alp Uzman Jan 19 '23 at 08:10
  • @FShrike Regarding where I learned my stuff, there is a lot of reference chasing of course (it's also important to keep an open mind as much as possible), but probably I've learned the most from my thesis advisor Federico Rodriguez Hertz (the so called "personal communication"). I have also been a phd student in one of the main hubs for dynamical systems and had the opportunity to interact with many highly influencial mathematicians as well as sit in many seminar talks. – Alp Uzman Jan 19 '23 at 08:16
  • 1
    I see, thank you for responding. I hope to have a good (PhD?) supervisor one day! – FShrike Jan 19 '23 at 09:46
  • @AlpUzman Thank you for the proof in the metrizable case, I'll try to understand it! just to be clear, do you still feel that the first proof provided in your answer is valid in general? If so, would you mind clarifying the issue I've been asking about above? – xir Jan 19 '23 at 15:31
  • @xir I do think the first argument is valid, but you are also valid in being doubtful about it. I will add details if I can come up with a better explanation. The main obstruction is to show that, at least in this case, the uncountable union of zero measure sets is measure zero. – Alp Uzman Jan 19 '23 at 15:40
  • Yeah, this is where we got stuck also! Certainly in general it's possible for the fibers of $T-\text{Id}$ to be an uncountable set of measure zero sets whose union is full measure; think about the group $S^1$ and $T:x\mapsto 2x$. We couldn't figure out how to the conditions on $T$ to preclude this possibility. – xir Jan 19 '23 at 17:47
  • 1
    You don't need any character theory to conclude that every fiber has to be full or zero measure, since they're all invariant under an ergodic transformation. – xir Jan 19 '23 at 17:48
1

Here is another proof, which is due to Adler (see his paper "Generalized Commuting Properties of Measure-Preserving Transformations", p.3, Prop.1). It seems the statement goes back to Halmos & von Neumann's paper "Operator Methods in Classical Mechanics, II" (p.347, Cor.2). Both of these arguments are for compact separable (hence metrizable) abelian groups; the argument that Halmos and von Neumann give is essentially the first argument I gave in my previous answer; here is said argument in totality:

enter image description here

enter image description here

Note that the content of the footnote is precisely where separability is used, and this was also a point of contention earlier.


Proof (assuming $G$ is in addition separable): Let $\chi\in \widehat{G}$. Then note that

$$\chi\circ R_g(x)=\chi(x+g)=\chi(x)\chi(g)=\chi(g)\chi(x),$$

and

$$\chi\circ f \circ R_g(x) = \chi\circ R_g\circ f(x)=\chi(f(x)+g)=\chi\circ f(x)\chi(g)=\chi(g)\chi\circ f(x).$$

Thus both $\chi$ and $\chi\circ f$ are square-integrable eigenfunctions of the Koopman operator of $R_g$, associated to the eigenvalue $\chi(g)$. Since $R_g$ is ergodic, the eigenvalue $\chi(g)$ is simple ($\blacktriangle$), whence there is a function $\Phi:\widehat{G}\to S^1$ (that possibly depends on $f$) such that for any $\chi\in\widehat{G}$ we have $\chi\circ f= \Phi(\chi)\,\chi$ almost everywhere. Since $G$ is compact, $\widehat{G}$ is discrete, whence $\Phi$ is continuous. Further, if $\chi,\rho\in\widehat{G}$, then (writing the group operation in $\widehat{G}$ multiplicatively) we have

$$\Phi(\chi\rho)\, \chi\rho = (\chi\rho)\circ f = (\chi\circ f) (\rho\circ f) = \Phi(\chi)\,\chi\, \Phi(\rho)\,\rho = \Phi(\chi)\Phi(\rho)\,\chi\rho,$$

so that $\Phi\in\widehat{\widehat{G}}$. Thus by Pontryagin duality there is a unique $h\in G$ such that for any $\chi\in\widehat{G}$, $\Phi(\chi)=\chi(h)$.

We claim that $f=R_h$ $\eta_G$-almost everywhere. Let $\chi\in\widehat{G}$. Then $\chi\circ f(x)$ $= \Phi(\chi)\, \chi(x)$ $=\chi(g)\chi(x)$ $=\chi\circ R_g(x)$ for almost every $x\in G$. Since $G$ is separable $\widehat{G}$ is countable, so the set

$$N=\bigcap_{\chi\in\widehat{G}}\{x\in G\,|\, \chi(f(x)-R_h(x))\neq1\}$$

is measurable and $\eta_G$-negligible. Further no character can separate $f(x)$ and $R_h(x)$ for $x\in G\setminus N$, which means that $f=R_h$ on the full measure set $G\setminus N$.

($\blacktriangle$) Taking the modulus of $\phi\circ R_g=_{\eta_G}\chi(g) \phi$ for nonzero $\phi$ gives that $|\phi|$ is invariant almost everywhere, hence by ergodicity is a nonzero constant; if $\psi\circ R_g=_{\eta_G}\chi(g)\psi$ also for nonzero $\psi$, then $\dfrac{\phi}{\psi}$ is invariant almost everywhere, hence constant almost everywhere.

Alp Uzman
  • 10,742
  • oh wow, thanks! is it possible, in that case, that the result is not even true if one drops the separability condition? I still haven't seen a convincing proof in that generality. – xir Jan 22 '23 at 04:48
  • @xir Of course it is possible, but I still believe that the statement is true in full generality, however handling the uncountable union involved will require some sophisticated measure theory. – Alp Uzman Jan 22 '23 at 04:58