According to ERT8 and ERT10, absolute notions of compact and weakly mixing can be also characterized in terms of eigenfunctions. Contrary to ERT15, in which we defined weakly mixing extensions via the behavior of ergodic averages, this post is devoted to the definition of compact extensions from the spectral viewpoint, whatever this means. To this matter, we investigate what happens to functions when we disintegrate then. By this we mean: what is the relation between and the various
,
? Here,
is an extension,
is the disintegration of
with respect to
and
,
.
Obviously, by Rohklin’s theorem (see ERT14), if then
for
-a.e.
. If
is equal to
regarded as a function in
, the above implication simply means that there is an injective map
which is not onto. Actually, observe that satisfies
and not every element of has this property. Restricted to this condition, we’ll see that
is bijective, by considering
as a Borel Hilbert bundle over
and proving that
is an isomorphism between
and the measurable square integrable sections of this bundle. By this bijection we mean that
is a direct integral of the Borel Hilbert bundle
.
Firstly, we develop general properties of Borel Hilbert bundles, for which is our toy model. Secondly, we investigate
by means of its
-modules and describe their respective “linear algebra”. Once this is done, three points will become clear:
- The relation between
and
.
- The concept of generalized eigenfunction.
- The qualitative concepts of compactness and weak mixing.
1. Hilbert bundles
Let be a measure space. A Borel bundle over
is a pair
where
is a measure space and
is a measurable onto map.
is called the base space and
the bundle projection. For each
,
is the fiber over
, and it will be denoted by
.
A map is a section if
is the identity map on
.
Let be a Borel bundle over
such that each fiber
is a complex Hilbert space, with
,
and
denoting addition, scalar product and multiplication by a scalar respectively (
). Then we say that
is a Borel Hilbert bundle if
- The map
is a measurable map from
into
.
is measurable on
to
.
- For each
, the map
is measurable on
.
Now let us put the definition in our context. Let be a homomorphism. As usual, we let
be the decomposition of
into measure on the fibres over
. We then define
and by the relation
Here as in the sequel an assertion made about is to be understood as valid for almost every
with respect to the measure
. Throughout our discussion we will assume that
is ergodic. This will become necessary for each
to have the same dimension, as we explain in the next paragraph.
The uniqueness of the decomposition of implies that
and thus
so that is an isometry of
to
. By the ergodicity assumption on
it follows that the spaces
are isomorphic as Hilbert spaces, all having the same dimension
.
2. -modules
In this section we investigate the structure of the Hilbert space , seen as a module over
. This space is separable, by the usual assumption that
is a Lebesgue space. Remember that each element
defines a section
defined almost everywhere simply by regarding
as a function
. From now on, we implicitly consider
as a subset of
and denote its elements simply as
instead of
.
Definition 1 A closed subspace
is called a
-module if for each
and any measurable function
for which the product
we have
.
Alternatively, the above definition is equivalent to the requirement that is a
–module:
whenever
and
. The reason we take products with elements of
is that this is the only way of making sure the result is again in
.
If is a
-module we denote by
the image of
in
. (Formally, if
is the canonical projection, then
is the image of
under
. The maps
and
are both homomorphisms and so
is a linear subspace of
.)
may be regarded too as a “bundle” of linear subspaces over
. We say
is of finite rank if
a.e. and of rank
if
a.e..
The next results of this section develop the linear algebra of these modules.
Proof: Given , let
. For a fixed
, define
Clearly, is measurable and
, that is,
does the job in the set
. If
ranges over a dense set in
, then
. Moreover, if
are such that
and
, then
and
. Thus, consecutive combinations in
of the functions
will give integral 1 on a set arbitrarily close to
, and since
is closed we can achieve 1 almost everywhere.
This lemma can be iterated to construct basis for modules of finite rank.
Definition 3 Let
be a
-module. A set
such that
a.e. for every
is called
-orthonormal. If
also spans
as a
-module, then we call it a
-orthonormal basis of
.
To say that spans
as a
-module means that every function in
can be expressed as a convergent linear combination with coefficient function on
.
Lemma 4 If
is a
-module with
a.e. then
has a
-orthonormal basis
.
Proof: Choose using Lemma 2. Let
.
is also a
-module and
a.e. Now use induction. Once
have been found, they form an orthonormal basis at each
and for arbitrary
we have
which proves the lemma.
In the case the “local dimension” is infinite, for example when
, one has to exercise more care in the construction of a
-orthonormal basis, since in passing to infinity one may exhaust certain subspaces before others. To avoid this we use the following
Lemma 5 Let
be a
-module with
a.e., and let
be functions in
. Then there exists a
-submodule
of rank
such that
.
Proof: We use induction on . If
, let
be the function obtained in Lemma 2 and consider
the rank one
-module generated by the function
. Observe that
a.e. and
belongs to
.
Now suppose the lemma has been proved for , and
is a rank
submodule containing
. Let
. Observe that if
is a
-orthonormal basis for
, the function
belongs to . Consider
a rank one submodule of
containing
(this follows from the case
). Then
is a submodule of
whose rank is
. It obviously contains
, and also
.
Lemma 6 Every
-module
with
a.e. has a
-orthonormal basis. In particular,
has a
-orthonormal basis.
Proof: The finite dimensional case is Lemma 4. Assume and let
be a dense subset of
(remember
has a countable dense subset and so does any of its closed subspaces). Define inductively submodules
such that
a.e. and
. Set
is a rank one submodule and thus we can find
such that
a.e. The
are
-orthonormal and
spans
. Hence the
-module spanned by
contains all
and so coincides with
.
3. as a direct integral of
We now proceed to obtain the first part of our goals: there is a bijective correspondence between and the measurable square integrable sections of
. Fix a
-orthonormal basis
of
. For each section
, form the coefficient functions
by
Definition 7
is measurable if each
is measurable. It is measurable square integrableif it is measurable and
We can equip the linear space of measurable square integrable sections of with the inner product
If we put , then
and so
is well-defined. It actually turns
into an isometry from
to its image.
Proposition 8 There is a bijective correspondence between
and the space of measurable square integrable sections of
. Such correspondence is given by
.
Proof: Given , each function
is measurable, because it is the composition of measurable functions. Since
it follows that every is indeed measurable square integrable. Conversely, let
be measurable square integrable. Then
satisfies
which is finite, proving that . Clearly,
and so the proof is complete.
Each defines a rank one
-module and each section of
defines a bundle of one dimensional subspaces of
. By the previous proposition, rank one
-module are in correspondence with bundles of one dimensional subspaces of
. We can go further on this correspondence and obtain representatives for
-modules of any finite rank of the same nature.
Let be the set of endomorphisms of
. The union
is again a Borel Hilbert bundle over
. A section of this bundle will be called an operator valued section. We say an operator valued section
is measurable if, for any measurable square integrable section
, the section
is measurable.
Definition 9 Let
be a map such that each
is an
-dimensional subspace of
. We say
is a measurable
-plane section if the operator valued section
, with
the orthogonal projection, is measurable.
Compare this definition with that of a metric in a Grassmanian: each subspace is identified to its orthogonal projection. Observe that one can not ask more than measurability for operator valued sections, since they are defined in . On the other hand, observers must be in the
-space we are working with, that is, they are measurable square integrable sections.
Theorem 10 For any fixed
, there is a bijective correspondence between the collection of rank
![]()
-modules in
and the space of measurable
-plane sections.
Proof: Let be a rank
-module. Choose a
-orthonormal basis
for
and observe that the operator valued section
is measurable, since it is given by
Conversely, let be a measurable
-plane section. Let
be a
-orthonormal basis for
and define sections
by
. By assumption, each
is square integrable and so, according to Proposition 8, is the image under
of some
. Let
be the
-module generated by
. It is clear that
.
4. Generalized eigenfunctions
We keep the setup of the previous section and assume is a
-module invariant under
, that is,
a.e. By the ergodicity assumption on
, the dimension of
is constant. In particular, a finite rank
-module is of rank
.
Definition 11 A function
is a generalized eigenfunction with respect to
or a
-eigenfunction if the module spanned by
is of finite rank. Equivalently,
is a generalized eigenfunction if it belongs to a
-invariant
-module of rank
.
Let be a
-orthonormal basis for
.
belongs to
and so we can write
with . If
is the vector valued function with components
and
, then
that is, is a vector valued eigenfunction, the “eigenvalue” being a matrix valued function on
. In addition,
is again a
-orthonormal basis for
and so
is a unitary matrix. The conclusion is that all generalized eigenfunctions belong to
-modules spanned by unitary generalized eigenfunctions. This fact implies that the bounded generalized eigenfunctions form an algebra containing
. Indeed:
- Each function in
is a generalized eigenfunction: obvious.
is a generalized eigenfunction whenever
are generalized eigenfunctions: assume
with
and
with
,
and
being both unitary. Then
belongs to the
-module generated by
. If
is the vector valued function with components
, then
, where
is unitary.
is a generalized eigenfunction whenever
are generalized eigenfunctions: let
and
be finite rank
-modules with bounded
-orthonormal basis
and
, respectively. Then the
-module spanned by the set
has finite rank and contains the product of any two bounded eigenfunctions
with
and
.
Definition 12 If
is a homomorphism, denote
the subspace of
spanned by the generalized eigenfunctions.
is clearly a
-module. It contains
as well as the subspace of
-invariant functions on
. In addition, we have the following
Lemma 13
contains the dense algebra of bounded generalized eigenfunctions.
Proof: Let be a
-module of finite rank and
a vector valued function such that
, with
unitary. Consider the function
and observe that
since the vectors and
are related by a unitary matrix. This proves that
is
-invariant and so, for each
, the set
is
-invariant. In these sets
are bounded and then each
is bounded. Furthermore, letting
,
and so generates a finite rank
-module, proving that they are generalized eigenfunctions. Obviously,
.
Algebras with the property of Lemma 13 can always be realized by intermediate factors.
Lemma 14 Let
be a Lebesgue space and
an algebra, invariant under conjugation. If
is the smallest
-algebra of
with respect to which all functions in
are measurable, then
where the closure is taken over
.
This result dates back to R. Zimmer in the paper
Extensions of ergodic group actions, Illinois J. Math 20 (1976), no. 3, 373–409,
where, independently, he has developed similar ideas to those of Furstenberg. We invite the reader to see the original work for a proof of this lemma.
5. Compact extensions
Definition 15 We say that
is a compact extension if
.
The last two result directly give the following.
Theorem 16 Given
, there exists an intermediate factor
such that
is a compact extension, with
.
By definition, is the largest intermediate compact extension of
in
. In order to keep accordance with the theory already developed, a compact extension should represent the complementary structure of a weakly mixing extension. This is indeed the case.
Proposition 17 The extension
is weakly mixing if and only if it has no non-trivial generalized eigenfunctions.
In other words, weakly mixing extensions are those for which . This being true, compact and weakly mixing extensions are actually complementary when looked through the spectral lenses. It is a matter of fact that this dichotomy turns Furstenberg-Zimmer structural theorem direct, as we’ll prove in ERT17.
We postpone the proof of Proposition 17 to a future post. Basically, it follows the ideas of Theorem 8 from ERT8: once there is a generalized eigenfunction, we construct a non-trivial -invariant function, but the technicalities are much harder and require the machinery of Hibert-Schmidt operators.
This post of Terence Tao has much in common with our discussion.
Previous posts: ERT0, ERT1, ERT2, ERT3, ERT4, ERT5, ERT6, ERT7, ERT8, ERT9, ERT10, ERT11, ERT12, ERT13, ERT14, ERT15.
Dear Matheus, I’m confused about the definition of $M_y$ in this post. It’s defined as the image of (a Y-module) $M$ under $p_y\circ \Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is the bijection between $L^2(X)$ and the set of cross-sections from $Y$ to the Hilbert bundle (mod zero measure sets). What I can’t see is the well-definition of $p_y$ (even on a full measure set of y’s) since it must be defined on equivalence classes of cross-sections.
By: Jaramillo on July 28, 2015
at 9:34 pm
Dear Jaramillo,
I’m not sure that I understood your question: the canonical projection
is well-defined independently of measure-theoretical considerations.
Indeed, if we think of each
as an abstract space
, then the canonical projection
is well-defined because the same is true for the projection from the abstract product space
to
consisting into taking the
-th coordinate
of a sequence
.
Best, Matheus
By: matheuscmss on July 29, 2015
at 11:45 am
Dear Matheus,
is not
, but rather
where
is the
-a.s. equal equivalence relationship. On this set the projection is not defined.
I meant that the image of
Put differently, if
and we decompose
(i.e.,
) then the “projection” of
at
(
) is not defined (of course, for each fixed
it is defined for a.e.
, but these full measures
‘s depend on
, and there are uncountably many of them -and I don’t see how taking a dense, countable subset of $M$ will do the job-).
By: Jaramillo on July 29, 2015
at 9:34 pm
Dear Jaramillo,
I see your point now. I think you are right that the map
is not well-defined as it is presented in the post. For this reason, I wrote to the author (Yuri Lima) of this guest post asking for clarifications and he promise to reply to your comment in the near future.
Best, Matheus
By: matheuscmss on July 31, 2015
at 3:07 pm
[…] has no topological structure, so this is not strictly precise). This is the approach taken in these notes by Yuri Lima and in Ch. 9 of Glasner’s book, for […]
By: Writing a Hilbert C*-submodule of L2(X)L^2(X) as an integral sum over Hilbert subundles – Math Solution on April 1, 2022
at 2:56 pm