MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. Does the following condition imply the amenability of $G$: there is a function $\mu:\mathcal{P}(G) \to [0,1]$ such that:

  • (subadditive) $\mu(G) = 1$, $\mu(A \cup B) \leq \mu(A) + \mu(B)$, and $A \subset B$ implies $\mu(A) \leq \mu(B)$,

  • (invariant) $\mu(A \cdot g) = \mu(A)$ for all $g$ in $G$,

  • (exhaustive) if $\{A_n : n <\infty\}$ is pairwise disjoint, then $\inf_n \mu(A_n) = 0$.

    A group distinguishing this condition from amenability cannot contain $F_2$. I am aware of the relationship to the (now solved) Maharam problem.

    I am not expecting an answer so much as asking whether (and where) this question has been studied.

  • share|cite|improve this question
    Hi Justin, Welcome! – Andrés E. Caicedo Nov 12 '10 at 2:52
    I second Andres' comment. Welcome. – Stefan Geschke Nov 12 '10 at 8:28
    Do you assume $\mu(A) \leq \mu(B)$ if $A \subset B$? – Andreas Thom Nov 12 '10 at 9:25
    That follows from subadditivity. – Justin Moore Nov 12 '10 at 14:59
    Sorry, you cannot assign 2. OK. Then assign 1 to G, 2/3 to every 1-element subset, and 3/4 to the empty set. – Mark Sapir Nov 12 '10 at 18:34

    Modulo a (possibly severe) measurability issue, the only groups which admit an invariant submeasure are the amenable groups.

    Let $G$ be a non-amenable group and $\mu$ be a $G$-invariant submeasure on $G$. Damien Gaboriau and Russell Lyons showed that every non-amenable group contains a random free subgroup. One way of putting this is to say that there exists a free and measure preserving Borel action of $G$ and $F_2$ on some standard probability space $(X,\alpha)$ and a cocycle $$c \colon F_2 \times X \to G$$ such that $c_x$ is injective for each $x \in X$ and $$c(g,x) \cdot x = g\cdot x, \quad \forall g \in F_2,x \in X.$$

    Considering now the measure space $Z=G \times X$, we see that the action of $F_2$ on $Z$ given by $g(t,x) = (c(g,x)t,g \cdot x)$ admits a fundamental domain $Y \subset Z$. (The measure of $Y$ is typically not finite. To get a picture, $Y$ plays the role of a set of representatives of cosets in case $F_2$ is an honest subgroup of $G$.)

    Let $W$ be a measurable subset of $Z$ and set $$\mu'(W) = \int_X \mu(W_x) d \alpha(x).$$ Moreover, for every element $z$ in the full group of the equivalence relation generated by $G$, we see that $\mu'(zA) = \mu'(A)$. Indeed, the action of each such element on $Z$ is given by a measure preserving shuffle of the $x$-coordinate and an $x$-dependent shift in the $G$-coordinate. Both operations preserve the integral.

    Let now $A \subset F_2$ and define $\mu''(A) := \mu'(A \cdot Y).$ Since $F_2$ lies in the full group of the equivalence relation generated by the action of $G$, we can conclude that $\mu''$ is $F_2$-invariant.

    It remains to analyze the implications of the assumption that $\mu$ is exhaustive. Let us assume that there exists an infinite disjoint family $(A_n)$ of subsets of $F_2$ such that $\mu''(A_n) \geq \delta>0$. Then, the functions $x \mapsto \mu(A_{n,x})$ are greater $\delta/2$ on a set of measure at least $\delta/2$. This, with an additional argument, (I did not check every detail) seems to contradict that $\mu$ is exhaustive. Hence, $\mu''$ is exhaustive as well.

    This is a contradiction. Hence, every group which admits a $G$-invariant submeasure is amenable.

    (The problem with this argument is that $x \mapsto \mu(W_x)$ need not be Borel, so that an additional argument is needed to make sense of the integral in the definition of $\mu'$. Maybe this can be cured, but I do not have time to think about it right now.)

    share|cite|improve this answer

    This is probably a trivial observation, but maybe useful to track the difficult part of the problem.

    If instead of condition three you require:

    (strongly exhaustive) There exists some constant $C>0$, such that $\lbrace A_n \mid n< \infty\rbrace$ pairwise disjoint implies that $\sum_n \mu(A_n) < C.$

    then $G$ is amenable. Indeed,

    $$\sigma(A) := \sup\left\lbrace \sum \mu(A_i) \mid A = \cup A_i \mbox{ is a finite disjoint union} \right\rbrace$$

    defines an invariant mean on $G$. First of all, since $\mu$ is strongly exhaustive, $\sigma(A)$ is a well-defined real number for every $A \subset G$. Secondly, $G$-invariance is obvious from the definition and the $G$-invariance of $\mu$.

    Now, if $C = A \cup B$ is a disjoint union, then $\sigma(C) \leq \sigma(A) + \sigma(B)$ follows as before, since each partition of $C$ gives rise to a partition of $A$ and $B$. However, $\sigma(A) + \sigma(B) \leq \sigma(C)$ also holds since a partition of $A$ and a partition of $B$ clearly merge to give a partition of $C$.

    All in all, $\sigma(A) + \sigma(B) = \sigma(C)$ whenever $C$ is the disjoint union of $A$ and $B$. This implies that $\sigma$ is a finite $G$-invariant finitely additive measure on $G$, and hence $G$ is amenable.

    share|cite|improve this answer

    Your Answer


    By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

    Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.