Amenability versus property (T) for non locally compact topological groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For locally compact groups amenability and Kazhdan's property (T) are mutually exclusive in the sense that a group having both properties is compact. This is no longer true for more general Polish groups. However, a weaker result still holds for SIN groups (topological groups admitting a basis of conjugation-invariant neighbourhoods of identity): if such a group admits sufficiently many unitary representations, then it is precompact as soon as it is amenable and has the strong property (T) (i.e. admits a finite Kazhdan set). If an amenable topological group with property (T) admits a faithful uniformly continuous representation, then it is maximally almost periodic. In particular, an extremely amenable SIN group never has strong property (T), and an extremely amenable subgroup of unitary operators in the uniform topology is never a Kazhdan group. This leads to first examples distinguishing between property (T) and property (FH) in the class of Polish groups. Disproving a 2003 conjecture by Bekka, we construct a complete, separable, minimally almost periodic topological group with property (T), having no finite Kazhdan set. Finally, as a curiosity, we observe that the class of topological groups with property (T) is closed under arbitrary infinite products with the usual product topology. A large number of questions about various particular topological groups remain open. The talk is based on the preprint arXiv:1512.01572v3 [math.GR], to appear in Trans. Am. Math. Soc., never before presented at a conference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".