You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘totally disconnected groups’ tag.
In the previous notes, we established the Gleason-Yamabe theorem:
Theorem 1 (Gleason-Yamabe theorem) Let
be a locally compact group. Then, for any open neighbourhood
of the identity, there exists an open subgroup
of
and a compact normal subgroup
of
in
such that
is isomorphic to a Lie group.
Roughly speaking, this theorem asserts the “mesoscopic” structure of a locally compact group (after restricting to an open subgroup to remove the macroscopic structure, and quotienting out by
to remove the microscopic structure) is always of Lie type.
In this post, we combine the Gleason-Yamabe theorem with some additional tools from point-set topology to improve the description of locally compact groups in various situations.
We first record some easy special cases of this. If the locally compact group has the no small subgroups property, then one can take
to be trivial; thus
is Lie, which implies that
is locally Lie and thus Lie as well. Thus the assertion that all locally compact NSS groups are Lie (Theorem 10 from Notes 4) is a special case of the Gleason-Yamabe theorem.
In a similar spirit, if the locally compact group is connected, then the only open subgroup
of
is the full group
; in particular, by arguing as in the treatment of the compact case (Exercise 19 of Notes 3), we conclude that any connected locally compact Hausdorff group is the inverse limit of Lie groups.
Now we return to the general case, in which need not be connected or NSS. One slight defect of Theorem 1 is that the group
can depend on the open neighbourhood
. However, by using a basic result from the theory of totally disconnected groups known as van Dantzig’s theorem, one can make
independent of
:
Theorem 2 (Gleason-Yamabe theorem, stronger version) Let
be a locally compact group. Then there exists an open subgoup
of
such that, for any open neighbourhood
of the identity in
, there exists a compact normal subgroup
of
in
such that
is isomorphic to a Lie group.
We prove this theorem below the fold. As in previous notes, if is Hausdorff, the group
is thus an inverse limit of Lie groups (and if
(and hence
) is first countable, it is the inverse limit of a sequence of Lie groups).
It remains to analyse inverse limits of Lie groups. To do this, it helps to have some control on the dimensions of the Lie groups involved. A basic tool for this purpose is the invariance of domain theorem:
Theorem 3 (Brouwer invariance of domain theorem) Let
be an open subset of
, and let
be a continuous injective map. Then
is also open.
We prove this theorem below the fold. It has an important corollary:
Corollary 4 (Topological invariance of dimension) If
, and
is a non-empty open subset of
, then there is no continuous injective mapping from
to
. In particular,
and
are not homeomorphic.
Exercise 1 (Uniqueness of dimension) Let
be a non-empty topological space. If
is a manifold of dimension
, and also a manifold of dimension
, show that
. Thus, we may define the dimension
of a non-empty manifold in a well-defined manner.
If
are non-empty manifolds, and there is a continuous injection from
to
, show that
.
Remark 1 Note that the analogue of the above exercise for surjections is false: the existence of a continuous surjection from one non-empty manifold
to another
does not imply that
, thanks to the existence of space-filling curves. Thus we see that invariance of domain, while intuitively plausible, is not an entirely trivial observation.
As we shall see, we can use Corollary 4 to bound the dimension of the Lie groups in an inverse limit
by the “dimension” of the inverse limit
. Among other things, this can be used to obtain a positive resolution to Hilbert’s fifth problem:
Theorem 5 (Hilbert’s fifth problem) Every locally Euclidean group is isomorphic to a Lie group.
Again, this will be shown below the fold.
Another application of this machinery is the following variant of Hilbert’s fifth problem, which was used in Gromov’s original proof of Gromov’s theorem on groups of polynomial growth, although we will not actually need it this course:
Proposition 6 Let
be a locally compact
-compact group that acts transitively, faithfully, and continuously on a connected manifold
. Then
is isomorphic to a Lie group.
Recall that a continuous action of a topological group on a topological space
is a continuous map
which obeys the associativity law
for
and
, and the identity law
for all
. The action is transitive if, for every
, there is a
with
, and faithful if, whenever
are distinct, one has
for at least one
.
The -compact hypothesis is a technical one, and can likely be dropped, but we retain it for this discussion (as in most applications we can reduce to this case).
Remark 2 It is conjectured that the transitivity hypothesis in Proposition 6 can be dropped; this is known as the Hilbert-Smith conjecture. It remains open; the key difficulty is to figure out a way to eliminate the possibility that
is a
-adic group
. See this previous blog post for further discussion.
This is yet another post in a series on basic ingredients in the structural theory of locally compact groups, which is closely related to Hilbert’s fifth problem.
In order to understand the structure of a topological group , a basic strategy is to try to split
into two smaller factor groups
by exhibiting a short exact sequence
If one has such a sequence, then is an extension of
by
(which includes direct products
and semidirect products
as examples, but can be more general than these situations, as discussed in this previous blog post). In principle, the problem of understanding the structure of
then splits into three simpler problems:
- (Horizontal structure) Understanding the structure of the “horizontal” group
.
- (Vertical structure) Understanding the structure of the “vertical” group
.
- (Cohomology) Understanding the ways in which one can extend
by
.
The “cohomological” aspect to this program can be nontrivial. However, in principle at least, this strategy reduces the study of the large group to the study of the smaller groups
. (This type of splitting strategy is not restricted to topological groups, but can also be adapted to many other categories, particularly those of groups or group-like objects.) Typically, splitting alone does not fully kill off a structural classification problem, but it can reduce matters to studying those objects which are somehow “simple” or “irreducible”. For instance, this strategy can often be used to reduce questions about arbitrary finite groups to finite simple groups.
A simple example of splitting is as follows. Given any topological group , one can form the connected component
of the identity – the maximal connected set containing the identity. It is not difficult to show that
is a closed (and thus also locally compact) normal subgroup of
, whose quotient
is another locally compact group. Furthermore, due to the maximal connected nature of
,
is totally disconnected – the only connected sets are the singletons. In particular,
is Hausdorff (the identity element is closed). Thus we have obtained a splitting
of an arbitrary locally compact group into a connected locally compact group , and a totally disconnected locally compact group
. In principle at least, the study of locally compact groups thus splits into the study of connected locally compact groups, and the study of totally disconnected locally compact groups (though the cohomological issues are not always trivial).
In the structural theory of totally disconnected locally compact groups, the first basic theorem in the subject is van Dantzig’s theorem (which we prove below the fold):
Theorem 1 (Van Danztig’s theorem) Every totally disconnected locally compact group
contains a compact open subgroup
(which will of course still be totally disconnected).
Example 1 Let
be a prime. Then the
-adic field
(with the usual
-adic valuation) is totally disconnected locally compact, and the
-adic integers
are a compact open subgroup.
Of course, this situation is the polar opposite of what occurs in the connected case, in which the only open subgroup is the whole group.
In view of van Dantzig’s theorem, we see that the “local” behaviour of totally disconnected locally compact groups can be modeled by the compact totally disconnected groups, which are better understood (for instance, one can start analysing them using the Peter-Weyl theorem, as discussed in this previous post). The global behaviour however remains more complicated, in part because the compact open subgroup given by van Dantzig’s theorem need not be normal, and so does not necessarily induce a splitting of into compact and discrete factors.
Example 2 Let
be a prime, and let
be the semi-direct product
, where the integers
act on
by the map
, and we give
the product of the discrete topology of
and the
-adic topology on
. One easily verifies that
is a totally disconnected locally compact group. It certainly has compact open subgroups, such as
. However, it is easy to show that
has no non-trivial compact normal subgroups (the problem is that the conjugation action of
on
has all non-trivial orbits unbounded).
Returning to more general locally compact groups, we obtain an immediate corollary:
Corollary 2 Every locally compact group
contains an open subgroup
which is “compact-by-connected” in the sense that
is compact.
Indeed, one applies van Dantzig’s theorem to the totally disconnected group , and then pulls back the resulting compact open subgroup.
Now we mention another application of van Dantzig’s theorem, of more direct relevance to Hilbert’s fifth problem. Define a generalised Lie group to be a topological group with the property that given any open neighbourhood
of the identity, there exists an open subgroup
of
and a compact normal subgroup
of
in
such that
is isomorphic to a Lie group. It is easy to see that such groups are locally compact. The deep Gleason-Yamabe theorem, which among other things establishes a satisfactory solution to Hilbert’s fifth problem (and which we will not prove here), asserts the converse:
Theorem 3 (Gleason-Yamabe theorem) Every locally compact group is a generalised Lie group.
Example 3 We consider the locally compact group
from Example 2. This is of course not a Lie group. However, any open neighbourhood
of the identity in
will contain the compact subgroup
for some integer
. The open subgroup
then has
isomorphic to the discrete finite group
, which is certainly a Lie group. Thus
is a generalised Lie group.
One important example of generalised Lie groups are those locally compact groups which are an inverse limit (or projective limit) of Lie groups. Indeed, suppose we have a family of Lie groups
indexed by partially ordered set
which is directed in the sense that every finite subset of
has an upper bound, together with continuous homomorphisms
for all
which form a category in the sense that
for all
. Then we can form the inverse limit
which is the subgroup of consisting of all tuples
which are compatible with the
in the sense that
for all
. If we endow
with the product topology, then
is a closed subgroup of
, and thus has the structure of a topological group, with continuous homomorphisms
which are compatible with the
in the sense that
for all
. Such an inverse limit need not be locally compact; for instance, the inverse limit
of Euclidean spaces with the usual coordinate projection maps is isomorphic to the infinite product space with the product topology, which is not locally compact. However, if an inverse limit
of Lie groups is locally compact, it can be easily seen to be a generalised Lie group. Indeed, by local compactness, any open neighbourhood of the identity will contain an open precompact neighbourhood of the identity; by construction of the product topology (and the directed nature of
), this smaller neighbourhood will in turn will contain the kernel of one of the
, which will be compact since the preceding neighbourhood was precompact. Quotienting out by this
we obtain a locally compact subgroup of the Lie group
, which is necessarily again a Lie group by Cartan’s theorem, and the claim follows.
In the converse direction, it is possible to use Corollary 2 to obtain the following observation of Gleason:
Theorem 4 Every Hausdorff generalised Lie group contains an open subgroup that is an inverse limit of Lie groups.
We show Theorem 4 below the fold. Combining this with the (substantially more difficult) Gleason-Yamabe theorem, we obtain quite a satisfactory description of the local structure of locally compact groups. (The situation is particularly simple for connected groups, which have no non-trivial open subgroups; we then conclude that every connected locally compact Hausdorff group is the inverse limit of Lie groups.)
Example 4 The locally compact group
is not an inverse limit of Lie groups because (as noted earlier) it has no non-trivial compact normal subgroups, which would contradict the preceding analysis that showed that all locally compact inverse limits of Lie groups were generalised Lie groups. On the other hand,
contains the open subgroup
, which is the inverse limit of the discrete (and thus Lie) groups
for
(where we give
the usual ordering, and use the obvious projection maps).

Recent Comments