Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:19:22.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amenable versus hyperfinite Borel equivalence relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Alexander S. Kechris
Alexander S. Kechris*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, E-mail: kechris@caltech.bitnet, E-mail: kechris@romeo.caltech.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let X be a standard Borel space (i.e., a Polish space with the associated Borel structure), and let E be a countable Borel equivalence relation on X, i.e., a Borel equivalence relation E for which every equivalence class [x]E is countable. By a result of Feldman-Moore [FM], E is induced by the orbits of a Borel action of a countable group G on X.

The structure of general countable Borel equivalence relations is very little understood. However, a lot is known for the particularly important subclass consisting of hyperfinite relations. A countable Borel equivalence relation is called hyperfinite if it is induced by a Borel ℤ-action, i.e., by the orbits of a single Borel automorphism. Such relations are studied and classified in [DJK] (see also the references contained therein). It is shown in Ornstein-Weiss [OW] and Connes-Feldman-Weiss [CFW] that for every Borel equivalence relation E induced by a Borel action of a countable amenable group G on X and for every (Borel) probability measure μ on X, there is a Borel invariant set Y ⊆ X with μ(Y) = 1 such that E ↾ Y (= the restriction of E to Y) is hyperfinite. (Recall that a countable group G is amenable if it carries a finitely additive translation invariant probability measure defined on all its subsets.) Motivated by this result, Weiss [W2] raised the question of whether every E induced by a Borel action of a countable amenable group is hyperfinite. Later on Weiss (personal communication) showed that this is true for G = ℤn. However, the problem is still open even for abelian G. Our main purpose here is to provide a weaker affirmative answer for general amenable G (and more—see below). We need a definition first. Given two standard Borel spaces X, Y, a universally measurable isomorphism between X and Y is a bijection ƒ: X → Y such that both ƒ, ƒ-1 are universally measurable. (As usual, a map g : Z → W, with Z and W standard Borel spaces, is called universally measurable if it is μ-measurable for every probability measure μ on Z.) Notice now that to assert that a countable Borel equivalence relation on X is hyperfinite is trivially equivalent to saying that there is a standard Borel space Y and a hyperfinite Borel equivalence relation F on Y, which is Borel isomorphic to E, i.e., there is a Borel bijection ƒ: X → Y with xEy ⇔ ƒ(x)F ƒ(y). We have the following theorem.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 894 - 907
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[AL]Adams, S. and Lyons, R., Amenability, Kazhdan's property, and percolation for trees, groups and equivalence relations, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 75 (1991), pp. 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CFW]Connes, A., Feldman, J., and Weiss, B., An amenable equivalence relation is generated by a single transformation, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, vol. 1 (1981), pp. 430–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[DJK]Dougherty, R., Jackson, S., and Kechris, A. S., The structure of hyperfinite Borel equivalence relations, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[FM]Feldman, J. and Moore, C. C., Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology and von Neumann algebras, I., Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 234 (1977), pp. 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[HKL]Harrington, L., Kechris, A. S., and Louveau, A., A Glimm-Effros dichotomy for Borel equivalence relations, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 3 (1990), pp. 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Kl]Kechris, A. S., Amenable equivalence relations and Turing degrees, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 182–194.Google Scholar
[K2]Kechris, A. S., The structure of Borel equivalence relations in Polish spaces, Set Theory and the Continuum (Judah, H., Just, W., and Woodin, W. H., editors), Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, Springer, New York, 1992, pp. 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[M]Moschovakis, Y. N., Descriptive set theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[N]Nadkarni, M. G., On the existence of a finite invariant measure, Indian Academy of Sciences, Proceedings, Mathematical Sciences, vol. 100 (1991), pp. 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OW]Ornstein, D. and Weiss, B., Ergodic theory of amenable group actions I: The Rohlin lemma, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 2 (1980), pp. 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SS]Slaman, T. and Steel, J., Definable functions on degrees, Cabal Seminar 81–85, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1333, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1988, pp. 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[V]Varadarajan, V. S., Groups of automorphisms of Borel spaces, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 109 (1963), pp. 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Wl]Weiss, B., Orbit equivalence of non-singular actions, Théorie Ergodique, L’Enseignment Mathématique. Revue Internationale. IIe Série, Monograph 29, Enseignment Mathématique, Geneva, 1981, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
[W2]Weiss, B., Measurable dynamics, Conference in modern analysis and probability (Beals, R.et al., editors), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 26, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1984, pp. 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Z]Zimmer, R., Hyperfinite factors and amenable ergodic actions, Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 41 (1977), pp. 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar