3
$\begingroup$

Is the following slightly generalization of Corollary 20.17 in Hewitt and Ross Book (page 296) correct?

Let $A$ be a subset of a profinite group $G$ ( compact, Hausdorff, totally disconnected topological group) such that $A=A^{-1}$ and $\lambda(A)>0$, where $\lambda$ is the normalized Haar measure of $G$. Suppose that $f$ is the function defined on $G\times \cdots \times G$ ($k$ times) into $\mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$ by $$(x_1,\dots,x_k)\mapsto \lambda(A\cap x_1 A \cap \cdots \cap x_k A).$$ Then $f$ is continuous.

Note that $f(1,\dots,1)=\lambda(A)$ ( $1$ is the identity element of $G$), so $f$ is somewhere positive.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I bet it is: if $x_{j,n}$ converges to $x_j$, then $\mathbb{1}_{x_{j,n}A}$ converges a.e. to $\mathbb{1}_{x_jA}$, and thus $\mathbb{1}_{A \cap x_{1,n}A \cap \ldots \cap x_{k,n}A}$ converges a.e. to $\mathbb{1}_{A \cap x_{1}A \cap \ldots \cap x_{k}A}$. The desired result follows now by the dominated convergence theorem. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2019 at 9:03
  • $\begingroup$ @MateuszKwaśnicki: I think your first claim will be true if $A$ is open, am I right? $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2019 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ @MeisamSoleimaniMalekan: I meant general Borel $A$, but I was indeed too sketchy when I wrote "converges a.e. to $\mathbb{1}_{x_jA}$": what I should have written is "converges in measure to $\mathbb{1}_{x_jA}$, and hence every subsequence has a sub-subsequence convergent a.e.". $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2019 at 11:35

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes, and the assumption of profiniteness is not needed (see comments). This can be proved by approximating in $L^2$ the indicator function $1_A$ by a continuous function $f$.

Using the fact that such $f$ must be uniformly continuous, any small perturbation $f_g$ of $f$ is within a small $L^\infty$ error of $f$. Therefore the map $$\Phi_f:(x_1,\dots,x_k)\mapsto\int_G f(g)f(x_1^{-1}g)\cdots f(x_k^{-1}g)\,d\lambda(g)$$ is continuous.

As $f\to1_A$ in $L^2$, Cauchy-Schwarz's inequality (together with the fact that we can keep every function in this argument bounded by $2$) implies that $\Phi_f\to\Phi_{1_A}$ uniformly, which shows that $\Phi_{1_A}$ is also continuous. Finally, note that $$\Phi_{1_A}(x_1,\dots,x_k)=\lambda(A\cap x_1A\cap\cdots\cap x_kA).$$

The more general principle at play here is that for any $p<\infty$ the map $g\mapsto f_g$ from $G$ to $L^p(G)$ is continuous, where $f_g$ denotes the function $f_g(x)=f(gx)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess "assumption of profiniteness is not needed" has to be interpreted as: being, instead, locally compact ($\sigma$-compact?) is enough. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Nov 18, 2019 at 11:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @YCor I was thinking of compact Hausdorff (I should have said totally disconnected is not needed) but now that you mention it I think locally compact should be enough. All that's needed is existence of Haar measure and denseness in $L^2$ of compactly supported continuous functions. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2019 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ But you deduce uniform continuity of $f$ from continuity of $f$, so surely need compactness? (EDIT: Oops, sorry, I just saw 'compactly supported'.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Nov 18, 2019 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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